MDedge Endocrinology

A report by the American Medical Association’s medical education advisory body points to systemic racism or other systems of oppression as causing a lack of representation, exclusion, and marginalization in medical education and medicine.

The report received overwhelming support at the House of Delegates, the AMA’s legislative policy making body, during an online meeting held June 13.

The Council on Medical Education’s report recommends that the AMA acknowledge the harm caused by the Flexner Report, which was issued in 1910 and has since shaped medical education. The Flexner Report caused harm not only to historically Black medical schools, but also to physician workforce diversity and to the clinical outcomes of minority and marginalized patients, according to the medical education advisory body.

The council also recommended conducting a study on medical education with a focus on health equity and racial justice, improving diversity among healthcare workers, and fixing inequitable outcomes from minorities and marginalized patient populations.

The report comes on the heels of the resignation of JAMA editor-in-chief Howard Bauchner, MD, and another high-ranking editor following a February podcast on systemic racism in medicine. The AMA has since released a strategic plan addressing racism and health inequity that has divided membership.
 

Flexner Report’s effect on physician diversity

The Council on Medical Education’s report observed that as a result of the Flexner Report’s recommendations, 89 medical schools, including 5 of the 7 existing medical schools training Black physicians, were closed because they didn’t meet the report’s standards. In addition, the report created a limited role for Black physicians while “hint[ing] that Black physicians possessed less potential and ability than their White counterparts,” read the Council’s report.

In addition to consigning the role of the Black physician to “educating the [Black] race to know and to practice fundamental hygienic principles,” the Flexner Report also observed that “a well-taught negro sanitarian will be immensely useful,” per the Council’s report.

The impact of the closure of medical schools training Black physicians was dramatic. According to the Council’s report, in 1964, 93% of medical students in the United States were men and 97% of those students were non-Hispanic White.

Today, 56% of physicians identify as White, 17% as Asian, 6% as Hispanic, and 5% as Black or African American, per the Association of American Medical Colleges; nearly 14% of active physicians didn’t report their race in the survey. By means of contrast, the U.S. population in 2019 was 60% White, 19% Latino/Hispanic, 13% Black or African American, and 6% Asian American, according to the Brookings Institute.

Abraham Flexner, who wrote the Flexner Report, is often referred to as the “father of modern medical education,” according to the AAMC. In November, the AAMC observed that the Flexner Report contained racist and sexist ideas and that his work contributed to the closure of historically Black medical schools. Both statements were included in AAMC’s announcement about the removal of Flexner’s name from its most prestigious award. As of January, the award is now called the AAMC Award for Excellence in Medical Education.
 

Pathway programs can increase diversity

Pathway programs, which leverage targeted milestones along the journey to becoming a physician in order to increase diversity, were an area of focus in the council’s report. These programs “can exert a meaningful, positive effect on student outcomes and increase diversity across various levels of educational settings,” according to its report.

Centers of Excellence, which provides grants for mentorship and training programs, is one of many pathway programs. During the 2018-2019 academic year, Centers of Excellence supported more than 1,300 trainees – 99% of them were underrepresented minorities and 64% came from financially or educationally disadvantaged backgrounds. In 2006, federal funding was cut to these programs and the number of Centers of Excellence fell.

Still, the report cites the passage of federal funding in 2020 of $50 million for public institutions of higher education that train physicians; educational institutions in states with a projected primary care shortage in 2025 are given priority in the grant-funding process.
 

AMA council’s report garners support from delegates

Delegates voiced overwhelming support of the council’s report during the June 13 meeting. Lou Edje, MD, a Perrysburgh, Ohio–based family physician, voiced strong support for the council’s report, in particular its recommendations that recognize the harm caused by the Flexner Report. Dr. Edje observed that the Flexner Report, with its elimination of five of seven Black medical schools, “[set] back admissions of Black students into medicine by 50 years.”

“Empathy is what we are called to have as physicians. I implore you to simply substitute your ethnicity into these quotes to help understand the historic need for health equity in medicine today. This CME report is part of the antidote to Flexner. We support [it] fully,” concluded Dr. Edje, who spoke for the Great Lakes States Coalition of the AMA.

Rohan Khazanchi, a medical student at the University of Nebraska, Omaha, and a member of the council, said, “Our broad attempt with this report was twofold: to fill gaps in AMA policy with evidence-based recommendations which could improve diversity in our health workforce and, second, to enhance our organization’s vision for truth, reconciliation, and healing to redress the historic marginalization of minoritized physicians in medicine.”

According to an AMA spokesperson, the House of Delegates will vote on this and other policies this week, after which the policies are considered final.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A report by the American Medical Association’s medical education advisory body points to systemic racism or other systems of oppression as causing a lack of representation, exclusion, and marginalization in medical education and medicine.

The report received overwhelming support at the House of Delegates, the AMA’s legislative policy making body, during an online meeting held June 13.

The Council on Medical Education’s report recommends that the AMA acknowledge the harm caused by the Flexner Report, which was issued in 1910 and has since shaped medical education. The Flexner Report caused harm not only to historically Black medical schools, but also to physician workforce diversity and to the clinical outcomes of minority and marginalized patients, according to the medical education advisory body.

The council also recommended conducting a study on medical education with a focus on health equity and racial justice, improving diversity among healthcare workers, and fixing inequitable outcomes from minorities and marginalized patient populations.

The report comes on the heels of the resignation of JAMA editor-in-chief Howard Bauchner, MD, and another high-ranking editor following a February podcast on systemic racism in medicine. The AMA has since released a strategic plan addressing racism and health inequity that has divided membership.
 

Flexner Report’s effect on physician diversity

The Council on Medical Education’s report observed that as a result of the Flexner Report’s recommendations, 89 medical schools, including 5 of the 7 existing medical schools training Black physicians, were closed because they didn’t meet the report’s standards. In addition, the report created a limited role for Black physicians while “hint[ing] that Black physicians possessed less potential and ability than their White counterparts,” read the Council’s report.

In addition to consigning the role of the Black physician to “educating the [Black] race to know and to practice fundamental hygienic principles,” the Flexner Report also observed that “a well-taught negro sanitarian will be immensely useful,” per the Council’s report.

The impact of the closure of medical schools training Black physicians was dramatic. According to the Council’s report, in 1964, 93% of medical students in the United States were men and 97% of those students were non-Hispanic White.

Today, 56% of physicians identify as White, 17% as Asian, 6% as Hispanic, and 5% as Black or African American, per the Association of American Medical Colleges; nearly 14% of active physicians didn’t report their race in the survey. By means of contrast, the U.S. population in 2019 was 60% White, 19% Latino/Hispanic, 13% Black or African American, and 6% Asian American, according to the Brookings Institute.

Abraham Flexner, who wrote the Flexner Report, is often referred to as the “father of modern medical education,” according to the AAMC. In November, the AAMC observed that the Flexner Report contained racist and sexist ideas and that his work contributed to the closure of historically Black medical schools. Both statements were included in AAMC’s announcement about the removal of Flexner’s name from its most prestigious award. As of January, the award is now called the AAMC Award for Excellence in Medical Education.
 

Pathway programs can increase diversity

Pathway programs, which leverage targeted milestones along the journey to becoming a physician in order to increase diversity, were an area of focus in the council’s report. These programs “can exert a meaningful, positive effect on student outcomes and increase diversity across various levels of educational settings,” according to its report.

Centers of Excellence, which provides grants for mentorship and training programs, is one of many pathway programs. During the 2018-2019 academic year, Centers of Excellence supported more than 1,300 trainees – 99% of them were underrepresented minorities and 64% came from financially or educationally disadvantaged backgrounds. In 2006, federal funding was cut to these programs and the number of Centers of Excellence fell.

Still, the report cites the passage of federal funding in 2020 of $50 million for public institutions of higher education that train physicians; educational institutions in states with a projected primary care shortage in 2025 are given priority in the grant-funding process.
 

AMA council’s report garners support from delegates

Delegates voiced overwhelming support of the council’s report during the June 13 meeting. Lou Edje, MD, a Perrysburgh, Ohio–based family physician, voiced strong support for the council’s report, in particular its recommendations that recognize the harm caused by the Flexner Report. Dr. Edje observed that the Flexner Report, with its elimination of five of seven Black medical schools, “[set] back admissions of Black students into medicine by 50 years.”

“Empathy is what we are called to have as physicians. I implore you to simply substitute your ethnicity into these quotes to help understand the historic need for health equity in medicine today. This CME report is part of the antidote to Flexner. We support [it] fully,” concluded Dr. Edje, who spoke for the Great Lakes States Coalition of the AMA.

Rohan Khazanchi, a medical student at the University of Nebraska, Omaha, and a member of the council, said, “Our broad attempt with this report was twofold: to fill gaps in AMA policy with evidence-based recommendations which could improve diversity in our health workforce and, second, to enhance our organization’s vision for truth, reconciliation, and healing to redress the historic marginalization of minoritized physicians in medicine.”

According to an AMA spokesperson, the House of Delegates will vote on this and other policies this week, after which the policies are considered final.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A report by the American Medical Association’s medical education advisory body points to systemic racism or other systems of oppression as causing a lack of representation, exclusion, and marginalization in medical education and medicine.

The report received overwhelming support at the House of Delegates, the AMA’s legislative policy making body, during an online meeting held June 13.

The Council on Medical Education’s report recommends that the AMA acknowledge the harm caused by the Flexner Report, which was issued in 1910 and has since shaped medical education. The Flexner Report caused harm not only to historically Black medical schools, but also to physician workforce diversity and to the clinical outcomes of minority and marginalized patients, according to the medical education advisory body.

The council also recommended conducting a study on medical education with a focus on health equity and racial justice, improving diversity among healthcare workers, and fixing inequitable outcomes from minorities and marginalized patient populations.

The report comes on the heels of the resignation of JAMA editor-in-chief Howard Bauchner, MD, and another high-ranking editor following a February podcast on systemic racism in medicine. The AMA has since released a strategic plan addressing racism and health inequity that has divided membership.
 

Flexner Report’s effect on physician diversity

The Council on Medical Education’s report observed that as a result of the Flexner Report’s recommendations, 89 medical schools, including 5 of the 7 existing medical schools training Black physicians, were closed because they didn’t meet the report’s standards. In addition, the report created a limited role for Black physicians while “hint[ing] that Black physicians possessed less potential and ability than their White counterparts,” read the Council’s report.

In addition to consigning the role of the Black physician to “educating the [Black] race to know and to practice fundamental hygienic principles,” the Flexner Report also observed that “a well-taught negro sanitarian will be immensely useful,” per the Council’s report.

The impact of the closure of medical schools training Black physicians was dramatic. According to the Council’s report, in 1964, 93% of medical students in the United States were men and 97% of those students were non-Hispanic White.

Today, 56% of physicians identify as White, 17% as Asian, 6% as Hispanic, and 5% as Black or African American, per the Association of American Medical Colleges; nearly 14% of active physicians didn’t report their race in the survey. By means of contrast, the U.S. population in 2019 was 60% White, 19% Latino/Hispanic, 13% Black or African American, and 6% Asian American, according to the Brookings Institute.

Abraham Flexner, who wrote the Flexner Report, is often referred to as the “father of modern medical education,” according to the AAMC. In November, the AAMC observed that the Flexner Report contained racist and sexist ideas and that his work contributed to the closure of historically Black medical schools. Both statements were included in AAMC’s announcement about the removal of Flexner’s name from its most prestigious award. As of January, the award is now called the AAMC Award for Excellence in Medical Education.
 

Pathway programs can increase diversity

Pathway programs, which leverage targeted milestones along the journey to becoming a physician in order to increase diversity, were an area of focus in the council’s report. These programs “can exert a meaningful, positive effect on student outcomes and increase diversity across various levels of educational settings,” according to its report.

Centers of Excellence, which provides grants for mentorship and training programs, is one of many pathway programs. During the 2018-2019 academic year, Centers of Excellence supported more than 1,300 trainees – 99% of them were underrepresented minorities and 64% came from financially or educationally disadvantaged backgrounds. In 2006, federal funding was cut to these programs and the number of Centers of Excellence fell.

Still, the report cites the passage of federal funding in 2020 of $50 million for public institutions of higher education that train physicians; educational institutions in states with a projected primary care shortage in 2025 are given priority in the grant-funding process.
 

AMA council’s report garners support from delegates

Delegates voiced overwhelming support of the council’s report during the June 13 meeting. Lou Edje, MD, a Perrysburgh, Ohio–based family physician, voiced strong support for the council’s report, in particular its recommendations that recognize the harm caused by the Flexner Report. Dr. Edje observed that the Flexner Report, with its elimination of five of seven Black medical schools, “[set] back admissions of Black students into medicine by 50 years.”

“Empathy is what we are called to have as physicians. I implore you to simply substitute your ethnicity into these quotes to help understand the historic need for health equity in medicine today. This CME report is part of the antidote to Flexner. We support [it] fully,” concluded Dr. Edje, who spoke for the Great Lakes States Coalition of the AMA.

Rohan Khazanchi, a medical student at the University of Nebraska, Omaha, and a member of the council, said, “Our broad attempt with this report was twofold: to fill gaps in AMA policy with evidence-based recommendations which could improve diversity in our health workforce and, second, to enhance our organization’s vision for truth, reconciliation, and healing to redress the historic marginalization of minoritized physicians in medicine.”

According to an AMA spokesperson, the House of Delegates will vote on this and other policies this week, after which the policies are considered final.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Patients with obesity who had bariatric surgery had a lower risk of having a major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) or dying from all causes during a median 7-year follow-up, compared with similar patients who did not undergo surgery.

These findings, from a province-wide retrospective cohort study from Quebec, follow two recent, slightly shorter similar trials.

Now we need a large randomized clinical trial (RCT), experts say, to definitively establish cardiovascular and mortality benefits in people with obesity who have metabolic/bariatric surgery. And such a trial is just beginning.

Philippe Bouchard, MD, a general surgery resident from McGill University in Montreal presented the Quebec study in a top papers session at the annual meeting of the American Society for Metabolic & Bariatric Surgery.

The findings showed that, among obese patients with metabolic syndrome, bariatric/metabolic surgery is associated with a sustained decrease in the incidence of MACE and all-cause mortality of at least 5 years, Dr. Bouchard said.

“The results of this population-based observational study should be validated in randomized controlled trials,” he concluded.

In the meantime, “we believe our study adds to the body of evidence in mainly two ways,” Dr. Bouchard told this news organization in an email.

It has a longer follow-up than recent observational studies, “a median of 7 years, compared to 3.9 years in a study from the Cleveland Clinic, and 4.6 years in one from Ontario, he said.

“This allows us to [estimate] an absolute risk reduction of MACE of 5.11% at 10 years,” he added. This is a smaller risk reduction than the roughly 40% risk reduction seen in the other two studies, possibly because of selection bias, Dr. Bouchard speculated.

“Second, most of the larger cohorts are heavily weighted on Roux-en-Y gastric bypass,” he continued. In contrast, their study included diverse procedures, including sleeve gastrectomy, duodenal switch, and adjustable gastric banding.

“Given the rise in popularity of a derivative of the duodenal switch – the single-anastomosis duodenal-ileal bypass with sleeve gastrectomy (SADi-S) – we believe this information is timely and relevant to clinicians,” Dr. Bouchard said.
 

RCT on the subject is coming

“I totally agree that we need a large randomized controlled trial of bariatric surgery versus optimal medical therapy to conclusively establish” the impact of bariatric surgery on cardiovascular outcomes, said the assigned discussant, Mehran Anvari, MD. And their research group is just about to begin one.

In the absence of RCT data, clinicians “may currently not refer [eligible] patients for bariatric surgery because of the high risk they pose,” said Dr. Anvari, professor and director of the Centre for Minimal Access Surgery of McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., and senior author in the Ontario study.

Furthermore, an important point is that the current trial extended the follow-up to 7 years, he told this news organization in an email.

That study included patients with diabetes and hypertension, he added, whereas his group included patients with a history of cardiovascular disease and/or heart failure.

“We hope these studies encourage general practitioners and cardiologists to consider bariatric surgery as a viable treatment option to prevent and reduce the risk of MACE in the obese patients [body mass index >35 kg/m²] with significant cardiovascular disease,” he said.

“We have embarked on a pilot RCT among bariatric centers of excellence in Ontario,” Dr. Anvari added, which showed the feasibility and safety of such a study.

He estimates that the RCT will need to recruit 2,000 patients to demonstrate the safety and effectiveness of bariatric surgery in reducing MACE and cardiac and all-cause mortality among patients with existing cardiovascular disease.

This “will require international collaboration,” he added, “and our group is currently establishing collaboration with sites in North America, Europe, and Australia to conduct such a study.”
 

Patients matched for age, sex, number of comorbidities

Quebec has a single public health care system that covers the cost of bariatric surgery for eligible patients; that is, those with a BMI greater than 35 kg/m² and comorbidities or a BMI greater than 40 kg/m².

Using this provincial health care database, which covers over 97% of the population, the researchers identified 3,637 patients with diabetes and/or hypertension who had bariatric surgery during 2007-2012.

They matched the surgery patients with 5,420 control patients with obesity who lived in the same geographic region and had a similar age, sex, and number of Charlson Comorbidity Index comorbidities, but did not undergo bariatric surgery.

The patients had a mean age of 50 and 64% were women.

Half had zero to one comorbidities, a quarter had two comorbidities, and another quarter had at least three comorbidities.

Most patients in the surgery group had type 2 diabetes (70%) and 50% had hypertension, whereas in the control group, most patients had hypertension (82%) and 41% had diabetes.

The most common type of bariatric surgery was adjustable gastric banding (42% of patients), followed by duodenal switch (24%), sleeve gastrectomy (23%), and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (11%).

The primary outcome was the incidence of MACE, defined as coronary artery events (including myocardial infarction, percutaneous coronary intervention, and coronary artery bypass graft), stroke, heart failure, and all-cause mortality,

After a median follow-up of 7-11 years, fewer patients in the surgical group than in the control group had MACE (20% vs. 25%) or died from all causes (4.1% vs. 6.3%, both statistically significant at P < .01)

Similarly, significantly fewer patients in the surgical group than in the control group had a coronary artery event or heart failure (each P < .01).

However, there were no significant between-group difference in the rate of stroke, possibly because of the small number of strokes.

The risk of MACE was 17% lower in the group that had bariatric surgery than in the control group (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.83; 95% confidence interval, 0.78-0.89), after adjusting for age, sex, and number of comorbidities.

In subgroup analysis, patients who had adjustable gastric banding, Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, or duodenal switch had a significantly lower risk of MACE than control patients.

The risk of MACE was similar in patients who had sleeve gastrectomy and in control patients.

However, these subgroup results need to be interpreted with caution since the surgery and control patients in each surgery type subgroup were not matched for age, sex, and comorbidities, said Dr. Bouchard.

He acknowledged that study limitations include a lack of information about the patients’ BMI, weight, medications, and glycemic control (hemoglobin A1c).

Dr. Bouchard and Dr. Anvari have no relevant financial disclosures.

Patients with obesity who had bariatric surgery had a lower risk of having a major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) or dying from all causes during a median 7-year follow-up, compared with similar patients who did not undergo surgery.

These findings, from a province-wide retrospective cohort study from Quebec, follow two recent, slightly shorter similar trials.

Now we need a large randomized clinical trial (RCT), experts say, to definitively establish cardiovascular and mortality benefits in people with obesity who have metabolic/bariatric surgery. And such a trial is just beginning.

Philippe Bouchard, MD, a general surgery resident from McGill University in Montreal presented the Quebec study in a top papers session at the annual meeting of the American Society for Metabolic & Bariatric Surgery.

The findings showed that, among obese patients with metabolic syndrome, bariatric/metabolic surgery is associated with a sustained decrease in the incidence of MACE and all-cause mortality of at least 5 years, Dr. Bouchard said.

“The results of this population-based observational study should be validated in randomized controlled trials,” he concluded.

In the meantime, “we believe our study adds to the body of evidence in mainly two ways,” Dr. Bouchard told this news organization in an email.

It has a longer follow-up than recent observational studies, “a median of 7 years, compared to 3.9 years in a study from the Cleveland Clinic, and 4.6 years in one from Ontario, he said.

“This allows us to [estimate] an absolute risk reduction of MACE of 5.11% at 10 years,” he added. This is a smaller risk reduction than the roughly 40% risk reduction seen in the other two studies, possibly because of selection bias, Dr. Bouchard speculated.

“Second, most of the larger cohorts are heavily weighted on Roux-en-Y gastric bypass,” he continued. In contrast, their study included diverse procedures, including sleeve gastrectomy, duodenal switch, and adjustable gastric banding.

“Given the rise in popularity of a derivative of the duodenal switch – the single-anastomosis duodenal-ileal bypass with sleeve gastrectomy (SADi-S) – we believe this information is timely and relevant to clinicians,” Dr. Bouchard said.
 

RCT on the subject is coming

“I totally agree that we need a large randomized controlled trial of bariatric surgery versus optimal medical therapy to conclusively establish” the impact of bariatric surgery on cardiovascular outcomes, said the assigned discussant, Mehran Anvari, MD. And their research group is just about to begin one.

In the absence of RCT data, clinicians “may currently not refer [eligible] patients for bariatric surgery because of the high risk they pose,” said Dr. Anvari, professor and director of the Centre for Minimal Access Surgery of McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., and senior author in the Ontario study.

Furthermore, an important point is that the current trial extended the follow-up to 7 years, he told this news organization in an email.

That study included patients with diabetes and hypertension, he added, whereas his group included patients with a history of cardiovascular disease and/or heart failure.

“We hope these studies encourage general practitioners and cardiologists to consider bariatric surgery as a viable treatment option to prevent and reduce the risk of MACE in the obese patients [body mass index >35 kg/m²] with significant cardiovascular disease,” he said.

“We have embarked on a pilot RCT among bariatric centers of excellence in Ontario,” Dr. Anvari added, which showed the feasibility and safety of such a study.

He estimates that the RCT will need to recruit 2,000 patients to demonstrate the safety and effectiveness of bariatric surgery in reducing MACE and cardiac and all-cause mortality among patients with existing cardiovascular disease.

This “will require international collaboration,” he added, “and our group is currently establishing collaboration with sites in North America, Europe, and Australia to conduct such a study.”
 

Patients matched for age, sex, number of comorbidities

Quebec has a single public health care system that covers the cost of bariatric surgery for eligible patients; that is, those with a BMI greater than 35 kg/m² and comorbidities or a BMI greater than 40 kg/m².

Using this provincial health care database, which covers over 97% of the population, the researchers identified 3,637 patients with diabetes and/or hypertension who had bariatric surgery during 2007-2012.

They matched the surgery patients with 5,420 control patients with obesity who lived in the same geographic region and had a similar age, sex, and number of Charlson Comorbidity Index comorbidities, but did not undergo bariatric surgery.

The patients had a mean age of 50 and 64% were women.

Half had zero to one comorbidities, a quarter had two comorbidities, and another quarter had at least three comorbidities.

Most patients in the surgery group had type 2 diabetes (70%) and 50% had hypertension, whereas in the control group, most patients had hypertension (82%) and 41% had diabetes.

The most common type of bariatric surgery was adjustable gastric banding (42% of patients), followed by duodenal switch (24%), sleeve gastrectomy (23%), and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (11%).

The primary outcome was the incidence of MACE, defined as coronary artery events (including myocardial infarction, percutaneous coronary intervention, and coronary artery bypass graft), stroke, heart failure, and all-cause mortality,

After a median follow-up of 7-11 years, fewer patients in the surgical group than in the control group had MACE (20% vs. 25%) or died from all causes (4.1% vs. 6.3%, both statistically significant at P < .01)

Similarly, significantly fewer patients in the surgical group than in the control group had a coronary artery event or heart failure (each P < .01).

However, there were no significant between-group difference in the rate of stroke, possibly because of the small number of strokes.

The risk of MACE was 17% lower in the group that had bariatric surgery than in the control group (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.83; 95% confidence interval, 0.78-0.89), after adjusting for age, sex, and number of comorbidities.

In subgroup analysis, patients who had adjustable gastric banding, Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, or duodenal switch had a significantly lower risk of MACE than control patients.

The risk of MACE was similar in patients who had sleeve gastrectomy and in control patients.

However, these subgroup results need to be interpreted with caution since the surgery and control patients in each surgery type subgroup were not matched for age, sex, and comorbidities, said Dr. Bouchard.

He acknowledged that study limitations include a lack of information about the patients’ BMI, weight, medications, and glycemic control (hemoglobin A1c).

Dr. Bouchard and Dr. Anvari have no relevant financial disclosures.

Patients with obesity who had bariatric surgery had a lower risk of having a major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) or dying from all causes during a median 7-year follow-up, compared with similar patients who did not undergo surgery.

These findings, from a province-wide retrospective cohort study from Quebec, follow two recent, slightly shorter similar trials.

Now we need a large randomized clinical trial (RCT), experts say, to definitively establish cardiovascular and mortality benefits in people with obesity who have metabolic/bariatric surgery. And such a trial is just beginning.

Philippe Bouchard, MD, a general surgery resident from McGill University in Montreal presented the Quebec study in a top papers session at the annual meeting of the American Society for Metabolic & Bariatric Surgery.

The findings showed that, among obese patients with metabolic syndrome, bariatric/metabolic surgery is associated with a sustained decrease in the incidence of MACE and all-cause mortality of at least 5 years, Dr. Bouchard said.

“The results of this population-based observational study should be validated in randomized controlled trials,” he concluded.

In the meantime, “we believe our study adds to the body of evidence in mainly two ways,” Dr. Bouchard told this news organization in an email.

It has a longer follow-up than recent observational studies, “a median of 7 years, compared to 3.9 years in a study from the Cleveland Clinic, and 4.6 years in one from Ontario, he said.

“This allows us to [estimate] an absolute risk reduction of MACE of 5.11% at 10 years,” he added. This is a smaller risk reduction than the roughly 40% risk reduction seen in the other two studies, possibly because of selection bias, Dr. Bouchard speculated.

“Second, most of the larger cohorts are heavily weighted on Roux-en-Y gastric bypass,” he continued. In contrast, their study included diverse procedures, including sleeve gastrectomy, duodenal switch, and adjustable gastric banding.

“Given the rise in popularity of a derivative of the duodenal switch – the single-anastomosis duodenal-ileal bypass with sleeve gastrectomy (SADi-S) – we believe this information is timely and relevant to clinicians,” Dr. Bouchard said.
 

RCT on the subject is coming

“I totally agree that we need a large randomized controlled trial of bariatric surgery versus optimal medical therapy to conclusively establish” the impact of bariatric surgery on cardiovascular outcomes, said the assigned discussant, Mehran Anvari, MD. And their research group is just about to begin one.

In the absence of RCT data, clinicians “may currently not refer [eligible] patients for bariatric surgery because of the high risk they pose,” said Dr. Anvari, professor and director of the Centre for Minimal Access Surgery of McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont., and senior author in the Ontario study.

Furthermore, an important point is that the current trial extended the follow-up to 7 years, he told this news organization in an email.

That study included patients with diabetes and hypertension, he added, whereas his group included patients with a history of cardiovascular disease and/or heart failure.

“We hope these studies encourage general practitioners and cardiologists to consider bariatric surgery as a viable treatment option to prevent and reduce the risk of MACE in the obese patients [body mass index >35 kg/m²] with significant cardiovascular disease,” he said.

“We have embarked on a pilot RCT among bariatric centers of excellence in Ontario,” Dr. Anvari added, which showed the feasibility and safety of such a study.

He estimates that the RCT will need to recruit 2,000 patients to demonstrate the safety and effectiveness of bariatric surgery in reducing MACE and cardiac and all-cause mortality among patients with existing cardiovascular disease.

This “will require international collaboration,” he added, “and our group is currently establishing collaboration with sites in North America, Europe, and Australia to conduct such a study.”
 

Patients matched for age, sex, number of comorbidities

Quebec has a single public health care system that covers the cost of bariatric surgery for eligible patients; that is, those with a BMI greater than 35 kg/m² and comorbidities or a BMI greater than 40 kg/m².

Using this provincial health care database, which covers over 97% of the population, the researchers identified 3,637 patients with diabetes and/or hypertension who had bariatric surgery during 2007-2012.

They matched the surgery patients with 5,420 control patients with obesity who lived in the same geographic region and had a similar age, sex, and number of Charlson Comorbidity Index comorbidities, but did not undergo bariatric surgery.

The patients had a mean age of 50 and 64% were women.

Half had zero to one comorbidities, a quarter had two comorbidities, and another quarter had at least three comorbidities.

Most patients in the surgery group had type 2 diabetes (70%) and 50% had hypertension, whereas in the control group, most patients had hypertension (82%) and 41% had diabetes.

The most common type of bariatric surgery was adjustable gastric banding (42% of patients), followed by duodenal switch (24%), sleeve gastrectomy (23%), and Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (11%).

The primary outcome was the incidence of MACE, defined as coronary artery events (including myocardial infarction, percutaneous coronary intervention, and coronary artery bypass graft), stroke, heart failure, and all-cause mortality,

After a median follow-up of 7-11 years, fewer patients in the surgical group than in the control group had MACE (20% vs. 25%) or died from all causes (4.1% vs. 6.3%, both statistically significant at P < .01)

Similarly, significantly fewer patients in the surgical group than in the control group had a coronary artery event or heart failure (each P < .01).

However, there were no significant between-group difference in the rate of stroke, possibly because of the small number of strokes.

The risk of MACE was 17% lower in the group that had bariatric surgery than in the control group (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.83; 95% confidence interval, 0.78-0.89), after adjusting for age, sex, and number of comorbidities.

In subgroup analysis, patients who had adjustable gastric banding, Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, or duodenal switch had a significantly lower risk of MACE than control patients.

The risk of MACE was similar in patients who had sleeve gastrectomy and in control patients.

However, these subgroup results need to be interpreted with caution since the surgery and control patients in each surgery type subgroup were not matched for age, sex, and comorbidities, said Dr. Bouchard.

He acknowledged that study limitations include a lack of information about the patients’ BMI, weight, medications, and glycemic control (hemoglobin A1c).

Dr. Bouchard and Dr. Anvari have no relevant financial disclosures.

People with “metabolically healthy obesity” are actually not healthy, since they are at increased risk for several adverse cardiometabolic outcomes, compared with people without obesity and or adverse metabolic profiles, new research suggests.

The latest data on this controversial subject come from an analysis of nearly 400,000 people in the U.K. Biobank. Although the data also showed that metabolically healthy obesity poses less risk than “metabolically unhealthy” obesity, the risk of progression from healthy to unhealthy within 3-5 years was high.

“People with metabolically healthy obesity are not ‘healthy’ as they are at higher risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease [ASCVD], heart failure, and respiratory diseases, compared with nonobese people with a normal metabolic profile. As such, weight management could be beneficial to all people with obesity irrespective of metabolic profile,” Ziyi Zhou and colleagues wrote in their report, published June 10, 2021, in Diabetologia.

Moreover, they advised avoiding the term metabolically healthy obesity entirely in clinical medicine “as it is misleading, and different strategies for risk stratification should be explored.”

In interviews, two experts provided somewhat different takes on the study and the overall subject.
 

‘Lifestyle should be explored with every single patient regardless of their weight’

Yoni Freedhoff, MD, medical director of the Bariatric Medical Institute, Ottawa, said “clinicians and patients need to be aware that obesity increases a person’s risk of various medical problems, and in turn this might lead to more frequent screening. This increased screening might be analogous to that of a person with a strong familial history of cancer who of course we would never describe as being ‘unhealthy’ as a consequence of their increased risk.”

In addition to screening, “lifestyle should be explored with every single patient regardless of their weight, and if a person’s weight is not affecting their health or their quality of life, a clinician need only let the patient know that, were they to want to discuss weight management options in the future, that they’d be there for them,” said Dr. Freedhoff.
 

‘Metabolically healthy obesity’ has had many definitions

Matthias Schulze, DrPH, head of the molecular epidemiology at the German Institute of Human Nutrition, Potsdam, and professor at the University of Potsdam, pointed out that the way metabolically healthy obesity is defined and the outcomes assessed make a difference.

In the current study, the term is defined as having a body mass index of at least 30 kg/m² and at least four of six metabolically healthy criteria: blood pressure, C-reactive protein, triacylglycerols, LDL cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, and hemoglobin A1c.

In May 2021, Dr. Schulze and associates reported in JAMA Network Open on a different definition that they found to identify individuals who do not have an increased risk of cardiovascular disease death and total mortality. Interestingly, they also used the U.K. Biobank as their validation cohort.

“We derived a new definition of metabolic health ... that is different from those used in [the current] article. Importantly, we included a measure of body fat distribution, waist-to-hip ratio. On the other side, we investigated only mortality outcomes and we can therefore not exclude the possibility that other outcomes may still be related. [For example], a higher diabetes risk may still be present among those we have defined as having metabolically healthy obesity.”

Dr. Schulze also said that several previous studies and meta-analyses have suggested that “previous common definitions of metabolically healthy obesity do not identify a subgroup without risk, or being at risk comparable to normal-weight metabolically healthy. Thus, this study confirms this conclusion. [But] this doesn’t rule out that there are better ways of defining subgroups.”

Clinically, he said “given that we investigated only mortality, we cannot conclude that our ‘metabolically healthy obesity’ group doesn’t require intervention.”

Higher rates of diabetes, ASCVD, heart failure, death

The current population-based study included 381,363 U.K. Biobank participants who were followed up for a median 11.2 years. Overall, about 55% did not have obesity or metabolic abnormalities, 9% had metabolically healthy obesity, 20% were metabolically unhealthy but did not have obesity, and 16% had metabolically unhealthy obesity as defined by the investigators.

The investigators adjusted the data for several potential confounders, including age, sex, ethnicity, education, socioeconomic status, smoking status, physical activity, and dietary factors.

Compared with individuals without obesity or metabolic abnormalities, those with metabolically healthy obesity had significantly higher rates of incident diabetes (hazard ratio, 4.32), ASCVD (HR, 1.18), myocardial infarction (HR, 1.23), stroke (HR, 1.10), heart failure (HR, 1.76), respiratory diseases (HR, 1.28), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (HR, 1.19).

In general, rates of cardiovascular and respiratory outcomes were highest in metabolically unhealthy obesity, followed by those without obesity but with metabolic abnormalities and those with metabolically healthy obesity. However, for incident and fatal heart failure and incident respiratory diseases, those with metabolically healthy obesity had higher rates than did those without obesity but with metabolic abnormalities.

Compared with those without obesity or metabolic abnormalities, those with metabolically healthy obesity had significantly higher all-cause mortality rates (HR, 1.22). And, compared with those without obesity (regardless of metabolic status) at baseline, those with metabolically healthy obesity were significantly more likely to have diabetes (HR, 2.06), heart failure (HR, 1.6), and respiratory diseases (HR, 1.2), but not ASCVD. The association was also significant for all-cause and heart failure mortality (HR, 1.12 and 1.44, respectively), but not for other causes of death.
 

Progression from metabolically healthy to unhealthy is common

Among 8,512 participants for whom longitudinal data were available for a median of 4.4 years, half of those with metabolically healthy obesity remained in that category, 20% no longer had obesity, and more than a quarter transitioned to metabolically unhealthy obesity. Compared with those without obesity or metabolic abnormalities throughout, those who transitioned from metabolically healthy to metabolically unhealthy had significantly higher rates of incident ASCVD (HR, 2.46) and all-cause mortality (HR, 3.07).

But those who remained in the metabolically healthy obesity category throughout did not have significantly increased risks for the adverse outcomes measured.

Ms. Zhou and colleagues noted that the data demonstrate heterogeneity among people with obesity, which offers the potential to stratify risk based on prognosis. For example, “people with [metabolically unhealthy obesity] were at a higher risk of mortality and morbidity than everyone else, and thus they should be prioritized for intervention.”

However, they add, “Obesity is associated with a wide range of diseases, and using a single label or categorical risk algorithm is unlikely to be effective compared with prediction algorithms based on disease-specific and continuous risk markers.”

Ms. Zhou has no disclosures. One coauthor has relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies; the rest have none. Dr. Freedhoff has served as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for the Bariatric Medical Institute and Constant Health. He is a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for Obesity Canada and Novo Nordisk, received research grant from Novo Nordisk, and received income of at least $250 from WebMD, CTV, and Random House. Dr/ Schulze has received grants from German Federal Ministry of Education and Research.

People with “metabolically healthy obesity” are actually not healthy, since they are at increased risk for several adverse cardiometabolic outcomes, compared with people without obesity and or adverse metabolic profiles, new research suggests.

The latest data on this controversial subject come from an analysis of nearly 400,000 people in the U.K. Biobank. Although the data also showed that metabolically healthy obesity poses less risk than “metabolically unhealthy” obesity, the risk of progression from healthy to unhealthy within 3-5 years was high.

“People with metabolically healthy obesity are not ‘healthy’ as they are at higher risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease [ASCVD], heart failure, and respiratory diseases, compared with nonobese people with a normal metabolic profile. As such, weight management could be beneficial to all people with obesity irrespective of metabolic profile,” Ziyi Zhou and colleagues wrote in their report, published June 10, 2021, in Diabetologia.

Moreover, they advised avoiding the term metabolically healthy obesity entirely in clinical medicine “as it is misleading, and different strategies for risk stratification should be explored.”

In interviews, two experts provided somewhat different takes on the study and the overall subject.
 

‘Lifestyle should be explored with every single patient regardless of their weight’

Yoni Freedhoff, MD, medical director of the Bariatric Medical Institute, Ottawa, said “clinicians and patients need to be aware that obesity increases a person’s risk of various medical problems, and in turn this might lead to more frequent screening. This increased screening might be analogous to that of a person with a strong familial history of cancer who of course we would never describe as being ‘unhealthy’ as a consequence of their increased risk.”

In addition to screening, “lifestyle should be explored with every single patient regardless of their weight, and if a person’s weight is not affecting their health or their quality of life, a clinician need only let the patient know that, were they to want to discuss weight management options in the future, that they’d be there for them,” said Dr. Freedhoff.
 

‘Metabolically healthy obesity’ has had many definitions

Matthias Schulze, DrPH, head of the molecular epidemiology at the German Institute of Human Nutrition, Potsdam, and professor at the University of Potsdam, pointed out that the way metabolically healthy obesity is defined and the outcomes assessed make a difference.

In the current study, the term is defined as having a body mass index of at least 30 kg/m² and at least four of six metabolically healthy criteria: blood pressure, C-reactive protein, triacylglycerols, LDL cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, and hemoglobin A1c.

In May 2021, Dr. Schulze and associates reported in JAMA Network Open on a different definition that they found to identify individuals who do not have an increased risk of cardiovascular disease death and total mortality. Interestingly, they also used the U.K. Biobank as their validation cohort.

“We derived a new definition of metabolic health ... that is different from those used in [the current] article. Importantly, we included a measure of body fat distribution, waist-to-hip ratio. On the other side, we investigated only mortality outcomes and we can therefore not exclude the possibility that other outcomes may still be related. [For example], a higher diabetes risk may still be present among those we have defined as having metabolically healthy obesity.”

Dr. Schulze also said that several previous studies and meta-analyses have suggested that “previous common definitions of metabolically healthy obesity do not identify a subgroup without risk, or being at risk comparable to normal-weight metabolically healthy. Thus, this study confirms this conclusion. [But] this doesn’t rule out that there are better ways of defining subgroups.”

Clinically, he said “given that we investigated only mortality, we cannot conclude that our ‘metabolically healthy obesity’ group doesn’t require intervention.”

Higher rates of diabetes, ASCVD, heart failure, death

The current population-based study included 381,363 U.K. Biobank participants who were followed up for a median 11.2 years. Overall, about 55% did not have obesity or metabolic abnormalities, 9% had metabolically healthy obesity, 20% were metabolically unhealthy but did not have obesity, and 16% had metabolically unhealthy obesity as defined by the investigators.

The investigators adjusted the data for several potential confounders, including age, sex, ethnicity, education, socioeconomic status, smoking status, physical activity, and dietary factors.

Compared with individuals without obesity or metabolic abnormalities, those with metabolically healthy obesity had significantly higher rates of incident diabetes (hazard ratio, 4.32), ASCVD (HR, 1.18), myocardial infarction (HR, 1.23), stroke (HR, 1.10), heart failure (HR, 1.76), respiratory diseases (HR, 1.28), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (HR, 1.19).

In general, rates of cardiovascular and respiratory outcomes were highest in metabolically unhealthy obesity, followed by those without obesity but with metabolic abnormalities and those with metabolically healthy obesity. However, for incident and fatal heart failure and incident respiratory diseases, those with metabolically healthy obesity had higher rates than did those without obesity but with metabolic abnormalities.

Compared with those without obesity or metabolic abnormalities, those with metabolically healthy obesity had significantly higher all-cause mortality rates (HR, 1.22). And, compared with those without obesity (regardless of metabolic status) at baseline, those with metabolically healthy obesity were significantly more likely to have diabetes (HR, 2.06), heart failure (HR, 1.6), and respiratory diseases (HR, 1.2), but not ASCVD. The association was also significant for all-cause and heart failure mortality (HR, 1.12 and 1.44, respectively), but not for other causes of death.
 

Progression from metabolically healthy to unhealthy is common

Among 8,512 participants for whom longitudinal data were available for a median of 4.4 years, half of those with metabolically healthy obesity remained in that category, 20% no longer had obesity, and more than a quarter transitioned to metabolically unhealthy obesity. Compared with those without obesity or metabolic abnormalities throughout, those who transitioned from metabolically healthy to metabolically unhealthy had significantly higher rates of incident ASCVD (HR, 2.46) and all-cause mortality (HR, 3.07).

But those who remained in the metabolically healthy obesity category throughout did not have significantly increased risks for the adverse outcomes measured.

Ms. Zhou and colleagues noted that the data demonstrate heterogeneity among people with obesity, which offers the potential to stratify risk based on prognosis. For example, “people with [metabolically unhealthy obesity] were at a higher risk of mortality and morbidity than everyone else, and thus they should be prioritized for intervention.”

However, they add, “Obesity is associated with a wide range of diseases, and using a single label or categorical risk algorithm is unlikely to be effective compared with prediction algorithms based on disease-specific and continuous risk markers.”

Ms. Zhou has no disclosures. One coauthor has relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies; the rest have none. Dr. Freedhoff has served as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for the Bariatric Medical Institute and Constant Health. He is a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for Obesity Canada and Novo Nordisk, received research grant from Novo Nordisk, and received income of at least $250 from WebMD, CTV, and Random House. Dr/ Schulze has received grants from German Federal Ministry of Education and Research.

People with “metabolically healthy obesity” are actually not healthy, since they are at increased risk for several adverse cardiometabolic outcomes, compared with people without obesity and or adverse metabolic profiles, new research suggests.

The latest data on this controversial subject come from an analysis of nearly 400,000 people in the U.K. Biobank. Although the data also showed that metabolically healthy obesity poses less risk than “metabolically unhealthy” obesity, the risk of progression from healthy to unhealthy within 3-5 years was high.

“People with metabolically healthy obesity are not ‘healthy’ as they are at higher risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease [ASCVD], heart failure, and respiratory diseases, compared with nonobese people with a normal metabolic profile. As such, weight management could be beneficial to all people with obesity irrespective of metabolic profile,” Ziyi Zhou and colleagues wrote in their report, published June 10, 2021, in Diabetologia.

Moreover, they advised avoiding the term metabolically healthy obesity entirely in clinical medicine “as it is misleading, and different strategies for risk stratification should be explored.”

In interviews, two experts provided somewhat different takes on the study and the overall subject.
 

‘Lifestyle should be explored with every single patient regardless of their weight’

Yoni Freedhoff, MD, medical director of the Bariatric Medical Institute, Ottawa, said “clinicians and patients need to be aware that obesity increases a person’s risk of various medical problems, and in turn this might lead to more frequent screening. This increased screening might be analogous to that of a person with a strong familial history of cancer who of course we would never describe as being ‘unhealthy’ as a consequence of their increased risk.”

In addition to screening, “lifestyle should be explored with every single patient regardless of their weight, and if a person’s weight is not affecting their health or their quality of life, a clinician need only let the patient know that, were they to want to discuss weight management options in the future, that they’d be there for them,” said Dr. Freedhoff.
 

‘Metabolically healthy obesity’ has had many definitions

Matthias Schulze, DrPH, head of the molecular epidemiology at the German Institute of Human Nutrition, Potsdam, and professor at the University of Potsdam, pointed out that the way metabolically healthy obesity is defined and the outcomes assessed make a difference.

In the current study, the term is defined as having a body mass index of at least 30 kg/m² and at least four of six metabolically healthy criteria: blood pressure, C-reactive protein, triacylglycerols, LDL cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, and hemoglobin A1c.

In May 2021, Dr. Schulze and associates reported in JAMA Network Open on a different definition that they found to identify individuals who do not have an increased risk of cardiovascular disease death and total mortality. Interestingly, they also used the U.K. Biobank as their validation cohort.

“We derived a new definition of metabolic health ... that is different from those used in [the current] article. Importantly, we included a measure of body fat distribution, waist-to-hip ratio. On the other side, we investigated only mortality outcomes and we can therefore not exclude the possibility that other outcomes may still be related. [For example], a higher diabetes risk may still be present among those we have defined as having metabolically healthy obesity.”

Dr. Schulze also said that several previous studies and meta-analyses have suggested that “previous common definitions of metabolically healthy obesity do not identify a subgroup without risk, or being at risk comparable to normal-weight metabolically healthy. Thus, this study confirms this conclusion. [But] this doesn’t rule out that there are better ways of defining subgroups.”

Clinically, he said “given that we investigated only mortality, we cannot conclude that our ‘metabolically healthy obesity’ group doesn’t require intervention.”

Higher rates of diabetes, ASCVD, heart failure, death

The current population-based study included 381,363 U.K. Biobank participants who were followed up for a median 11.2 years. Overall, about 55% did not have obesity or metabolic abnormalities, 9% had metabolically healthy obesity, 20% were metabolically unhealthy but did not have obesity, and 16% had metabolically unhealthy obesity as defined by the investigators.

The investigators adjusted the data for several potential confounders, including age, sex, ethnicity, education, socioeconomic status, smoking status, physical activity, and dietary factors.

Compared with individuals without obesity or metabolic abnormalities, those with metabolically healthy obesity had significantly higher rates of incident diabetes (hazard ratio, 4.32), ASCVD (HR, 1.18), myocardial infarction (HR, 1.23), stroke (HR, 1.10), heart failure (HR, 1.76), respiratory diseases (HR, 1.28), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (HR, 1.19).

In general, rates of cardiovascular and respiratory outcomes were highest in metabolically unhealthy obesity, followed by those without obesity but with metabolic abnormalities and those with metabolically healthy obesity. However, for incident and fatal heart failure and incident respiratory diseases, those with metabolically healthy obesity had higher rates than did those without obesity but with metabolic abnormalities.

Compared with those without obesity or metabolic abnormalities, those with metabolically healthy obesity had significantly higher all-cause mortality rates (HR, 1.22). And, compared with those without obesity (regardless of metabolic status) at baseline, those with metabolically healthy obesity were significantly more likely to have diabetes (HR, 2.06), heart failure (HR, 1.6), and respiratory diseases (HR, 1.2), but not ASCVD. The association was also significant for all-cause and heart failure mortality (HR, 1.12 and 1.44, respectively), but not for other causes of death.
 

Progression from metabolically healthy to unhealthy is common

Among 8,512 participants for whom longitudinal data were available for a median of 4.4 years, half of those with metabolically healthy obesity remained in that category, 20% no longer had obesity, and more than a quarter transitioned to metabolically unhealthy obesity. Compared with those without obesity or metabolic abnormalities throughout, those who transitioned from metabolically healthy to metabolically unhealthy had significantly higher rates of incident ASCVD (HR, 2.46) and all-cause mortality (HR, 3.07).

But those who remained in the metabolically healthy obesity category throughout did not have significantly increased risks for the adverse outcomes measured.

Ms. Zhou and colleagues noted that the data demonstrate heterogeneity among people with obesity, which offers the potential to stratify risk based on prognosis. For example, “people with [metabolically unhealthy obesity] were at a higher risk of mortality and morbidity than everyone else, and thus they should be prioritized for intervention.”

However, they add, “Obesity is associated with a wide range of diseases, and using a single label or categorical risk algorithm is unlikely to be effective compared with prediction algorithms based on disease-specific and continuous risk markers.”

Ms. Zhou has no disclosures. One coauthor has relationships with numerous pharmaceutical companies; the rest have none. Dr. Freedhoff has served as a director, officer, partner, employee, adviser, consultant, or trustee for the Bariatric Medical Institute and Constant Health. He is a speaker or a member of a speakers bureau for Obesity Canada and Novo Nordisk, received research grant from Novo Nordisk, and received income of at least $250 from WebMD, CTV, and Random House. Dr/ Schulze has received grants from German Federal Ministry of Education and Research.

For physicians who are just starting out or thinking about moving, the “Land of 10,000 Lakes” could be the land of opportunity, according to a recent Medscape analysis.

In a ranking of the 50 states, Minnesota “claimed top marks for livability, low incidence of adverse actions against doctors, and the performance of its health system,” Shelly Reese wrote in Medscape’s “Best & Worst Places to Practice 2021.”

Minnesota is below average where it’s good to be below average – share of physicians reporting burnout and/or depression – but above average in the share of physicians who say they’re “very happy” outside of work, Medscape said in the annual report.

Second on this year’s list is Wisconsin, which benefits from low levels of malpractice payouts and adverse actions and a high level of livability. Third place went to Washington (called the most livable state in the country by U.S. News and World Report), fourth to Colorado (physicians happy at and outside of work, high retention rate for residents), and fifth to Utah (low crime rate, high quality of life), Medscape said.

At the bottom of the list for 2021 is West Virginia, where physicians “may confront a bevy of challenges” in the form of low livability, a high rate of adverse actions, and relatively high malpractice payouts, Ms. Reese noted in the report.

State number 49 is Louisiana, where livability is low, malpractice payouts are high, and more than half of physicians say that they’re burned out and/or depressed. New Mexico is 48th (very high rate of adverse actions, poor resident retention), Nevada is 47th (low marks for avoidable hospital use and disparity in care), and Rhode Island is 46th (high malpractice payouts, low physician compensation), Medscape said.

Continuing with the group-of-five theme, America’s three most populous states finished in the top half of the ranking – California 16th, Texas 11th, and Florida 21st – but New York and Pennsylvania, numbers four and five by population size, did not.

The rankings are based on states’ performance in 10 different measures, three of which were sourced from Medscape surveys – happiness at work, happiness outside of work, and burnout/depression – and seven from other organizations: adverse actions against physicians, malpractice payouts, compensation (adjusted for cost of living), overall health, health system performance, overall livability, resident retention.
 

[email protected]

For physicians who are just starting out or thinking about moving, the “Land of 10,000 Lakes” could be the land of opportunity, according to a recent Medscape analysis.

In a ranking of the 50 states, Minnesota “claimed top marks for livability, low incidence of adverse actions against doctors, and the performance of its health system,” Shelly Reese wrote in Medscape’s “Best & Worst Places to Practice 2021.”

Minnesota is below average where it’s good to be below average – share of physicians reporting burnout and/or depression – but above average in the share of physicians who say they’re “very happy” outside of work, Medscape said in the annual report.

Second on this year’s list is Wisconsin, which benefits from low levels of malpractice payouts and adverse actions and a high level of livability. Third place went to Washington (called the most livable state in the country by U.S. News and World Report), fourth to Colorado (physicians happy at and outside of work, high retention rate for residents), and fifth to Utah (low crime rate, high quality of life), Medscape said.

At the bottom of the list for 2021 is West Virginia, where physicians “may confront a bevy of challenges” in the form of low livability, a high rate of adverse actions, and relatively high malpractice payouts, Ms. Reese noted in the report.

State number 49 is Louisiana, where livability is low, malpractice payouts are high, and more than half of physicians say that they’re burned out and/or depressed. New Mexico is 48th (very high rate of adverse actions, poor resident retention), Nevada is 47th (low marks for avoidable hospital use and disparity in care), and Rhode Island is 46th (high malpractice payouts, low physician compensation), Medscape said.

Continuing with the group-of-five theme, America’s three most populous states finished in the top half of the ranking – California 16th, Texas 11th, and Florida 21st – but New York and Pennsylvania, numbers four and five by population size, did not.

The rankings are based on states’ performance in 10 different measures, three of which were sourced from Medscape surveys – happiness at work, happiness outside of work, and burnout/depression – and seven from other organizations: adverse actions against physicians, malpractice payouts, compensation (adjusted for cost of living), overall health, health system performance, overall livability, resident retention.
 

[email protected]

For physicians who are just starting out or thinking about moving, the “Land of 10,000 Lakes” could be the land of opportunity, according to a recent Medscape analysis.

In a ranking of the 50 states, Minnesota “claimed top marks for livability, low incidence of adverse actions against doctors, and the performance of its health system,” Shelly Reese wrote in Medscape’s “Best & Worst Places to Practice 2021.”

Minnesota is below average where it’s good to be below average – share of physicians reporting burnout and/or depression – but above average in the share of physicians who say they’re “very happy” outside of work, Medscape said in the annual report.

Second on this year’s list is Wisconsin, which benefits from low levels of malpractice payouts and adverse actions and a high level of livability. Third place went to Washington (called the most livable state in the country by U.S. News and World Report), fourth to Colorado (physicians happy at and outside of work, high retention rate for residents), and fifth to Utah (low crime rate, high quality of life), Medscape said.

At the bottom of the list for 2021 is West Virginia, where physicians “may confront a bevy of challenges” in the form of low livability, a high rate of adverse actions, and relatively high malpractice payouts, Ms. Reese noted in the report.

State number 49 is Louisiana, where livability is low, malpractice payouts are high, and more than half of physicians say that they’re burned out and/or depressed. New Mexico is 48th (very high rate of adverse actions, poor resident retention), Nevada is 47th (low marks for avoidable hospital use and disparity in care), and Rhode Island is 46th (high malpractice payouts, low physician compensation), Medscape said.

Continuing with the group-of-five theme, America’s three most populous states finished in the top half of the ranking – California 16th, Texas 11th, and Florida 21st – but New York and Pennsylvania, numbers four and five by population size, did not.

The rankings are based on states’ performance in 10 different measures, three of which were sourced from Medscape surveys – happiness at work, happiness outside of work, and burnout/depression – and seven from other organizations: adverse actions against physicians, malpractice payouts, compensation (adjusted for cost of living), overall health, health system performance, overall livability, resident retention.
 

[email protected]

Patients who underwent metabolic and bariatric surgery had fewer than half the number of hospitalizations for both acute and chronic episodes of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) in a retrospective analysis of more than 2 million Americans collected in a national database.

In a multivariate analysis that adjusted for several variables patients without a history of bariatric surgery had three- to fivefold more hospitalizations for acute events involving HFpEF, and more than double the rate of hospitalizations for chronic HFpEF events, David R. Funes, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery.

While this analysis has the limitations of being retrospective, observational, and entirely reliant on procedure codes to define medical histories and outcomes, it had the advantage of using a large database designed to represent the U.S. adult population, said Dr. Funes, a bariatric surgeon at the Cleveland Clinic in Weston, Fla.
 

HFpEF effects could ‘extend’ surgery’s use

The report “adds an important article to the literature where there is a true void in trying to discern the effect of bariatric surgery on HFpEF,” commented Tammy L. Kindel, MD, PhD, director of the bariatric surgery program at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, and designated discussant for the report. “Minimal studies [up to now] demonstrate that weight loss in any form can modify diastolic dysfunction in patients with HFpEF. Studies that investigate the impact of bariatric surgery on clinical outcomes in patients with HFpEF are probably the most important for extending use of metabolic surgery,” Dr. Kindel said.

She added that “one of the most difficult parts of studying HFpEF” is making a firm diagnosis that often involves excluding other potential causes. She also questioned Dr. Funes about his confidence that his analysis correctly identified patients only with HFpEF. Dr. Funes replied that the diagnostic codes his team used allowed for a clear distinction between patients identified with HFpEF and those with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, but he also admitted that his study’s complete reliance on these codes introduced a limitation to the analysis.
 

Including patients with diastolic dysfunction as well as HFpEF

The study used data collected during 2010-2015 by the National Inpatient Sample, run by the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services in a case-control analysis that included 296,041 patients who had undergone some form of bariatric surgery and 2,004,804 people with no history of bariatric surgery selected as controls on the basis of their obesity.

The absolute numbers showed that, during the observation period, the incidence of acute HFpEF hospitalizations was 0.19% among those with prior bariatric surgery and 0.86% among those with no surgery, and the incidence of chronic heart failure hospitalizations was 0.01% among people with prior bariatric surgery and 0.05% among those without prior surgery. Dr. Funes said. He noted that, during the period studied patients, with HFpEF were usually identified as having diastolic heart failure, an older name for the same disease.

In multivariate analyses that adjusted for age, sex, race, hypertension, diabetes, smoking, and coronary artery disease, people without prior bariatric surgery and with hypertension had a 2.8-fold increased rate of acute hospitalizations for HFpEF, while those without hypertension or prior bariatric surgery had a 5.2-fold increased rate. In addition, control patients, regardless of hypertension status, had a 2.9-fold increased rate of hospitalizations for chronic HFpEF events. All these differences were statistically significant.

Dr. Funes also reported results from additional analyses that focused on a roughly 68,000-patient subgroup of those included in the study who had a history of coronary artery disease, including about 62,000 with no prior bariatric surgery and nearly 6,000 people with prior bariatric surgery. In a multivariate analysis of this subgroup, people without prior bariatric surgery had a 2.65-fold increased rate of hospitalization for a HFpEF event (either acute or chronic), compared with those who had undergone bariatric surgery.

Dr. Funes and associates and Dr. Kindel had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

Patients who underwent metabolic and bariatric surgery had fewer than half the number of hospitalizations for both acute and chronic episodes of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) in a retrospective analysis of more than 2 million Americans collected in a national database.

In a multivariate analysis that adjusted for several variables patients without a history of bariatric surgery had three- to fivefold more hospitalizations for acute events involving HFpEF, and more than double the rate of hospitalizations for chronic HFpEF events, David R. Funes, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery.

While this analysis has the limitations of being retrospective, observational, and entirely reliant on procedure codes to define medical histories and outcomes, it had the advantage of using a large database designed to represent the U.S. adult population, said Dr. Funes, a bariatric surgeon at the Cleveland Clinic in Weston, Fla.
 

HFpEF effects could ‘extend’ surgery’s use

The report “adds an important article to the literature where there is a true void in trying to discern the effect of bariatric surgery on HFpEF,” commented Tammy L. Kindel, MD, PhD, director of the bariatric surgery program at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, and designated discussant for the report. “Minimal studies [up to now] demonstrate that weight loss in any form can modify diastolic dysfunction in patients with HFpEF. Studies that investigate the impact of bariatric surgery on clinical outcomes in patients with HFpEF are probably the most important for extending use of metabolic surgery,” Dr. Kindel said.

She added that “one of the most difficult parts of studying HFpEF” is making a firm diagnosis that often involves excluding other potential causes. She also questioned Dr. Funes about his confidence that his analysis correctly identified patients only with HFpEF. Dr. Funes replied that the diagnostic codes his team used allowed for a clear distinction between patients identified with HFpEF and those with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, but he also admitted that his study’s complete reliance on these codes introduced a limitation to the analysis.
 

Including patients with diastolic dysfunction as well as HFpEF

The study used data collected during 2010-2015 by the National Inpatient Sample, run by the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services in a case-control analysis that included 296,041 patients who had undergone some form of bariatric surgery and 2,004,804 people with no history of bariatric surgery selected as controls on the basis of their obesity.

The absolute numbers showed that, during the observation period, the incidence of acute HFpEF hospitalizations was 0.19% among those with prior bariatric surgery and 0.86% among those with no surgery, and the incidence of chronic heart failure hospitalizations was 0.01% among people with prior bariatric surgery and 0.05% among those without prior surgery. Dr. Funes said. He noted that, during the period studied patients, with HFpEF were usually identified as having diastolic heart failure, an older name for the same disease.

In multivariate analyses that adjusted for age, sex, race, hypertension, diabetes, smoking, and coronary artery disease, people without prior bariatric surgery and with hypertension had a 2.8-fold increased rate of acute hospitalizations for HFpEF, while those without hypertension or prior bariatric surgery had a 5.2-fold increased rate. In addition, control patients, regardless of hypertension status, had a 2.9-fold increased rate of hospitalizations for chronic HFpEF events. All these differences were statistically significant.

Dr. Funes also reported results from additional analyses that focused on a roughly 68,000-patient subgroup of those included in the study who had a history of coronary artery disease, including about 62,000 with no prior bariatric surgery and nearly 6,000 people with prior bariatric surgery. In a multivariate analysis of this subgroup, people without prior bariatric surgery had a 2.65-fold increased rate of hospitalization for a HFpEF event (either acute or chronic), compared with those who had undergone bariatric surgery.

Dr. Funes and associates and Dr. Kindel had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

Patients who underwent metabolic and bariatric surgery had fewer than half the number of hospitalizations for both acute and chronic episodes of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) in a retrospective analysis of more than 2 million Americans collected in a national database.

In a multivariate analysis that adjusted for several variables patients without a history of bariatric surgery had three- to fivefold more hospitalizations for acute events involving HFpEF, and more than double the rate of hospitalizations for chronic HFpEF events, David R. Funes, MD, said at the annual meeting of the American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery.

While this analysis has the limitations of being retrospective, observational, and entirely reliant on procedure codes to define medical histories and outcomes, it had the advantage of using a large database designed to represent the U.S. adult population, said Dr. Funes, a bariatric surgeon at the Cleveland Clinic in Weston, Fla.
 

HFpEF effects could ‘extend’ surgery’s use

The report “adds an important article to the literature where there is a true void in trying to discern the effect of bariatric surgery on HFpEF,” commented Tammy L. Kindel, MD, PhD, director of the bariatric surgery program at the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, and designated discussant for the report. “Minimal studies [up to now] demonstrate that weight loss in any form can modify diastolic dysfunction in patients with HFpEF. Studies that investigate the impact of bariatric surgery on clinical outcomes in patients with HFpEF are probably the most important for extending use of metabolic surgery,” Dr. Kindel said.

She added that “one of the most difficult parts of studying HFpEF” is making a firm diagnosis that often involves excluding other potential causes. She also questioned Dr. Funes about his confidence that his analysis correctly identified patients only with HFpEF. Dr. Funes replied that the diagnostic codes his team used allowed for a clear distinction between patients identified with HFpEF and those with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, but he also admitted that his study’s complete reliance on these codes introduced a limitation to the analysis.
 

Including patients with diastolic dysfunction as well as HFpEF

The study used data collected during 2010-2015 by the National Inpatient Sample, run by the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services in a case-control analysis that included 296,041 patients who had undergone some form of bariatric surgery and 2,004,804 people with no history of bariatric surgery selected as controls on the basis of their obesity.

The absolute numbers showed that, during the observation period, the incidence of acute HFpEF hospitalizations was 0.19% among those with prior bariatric surgery and 0.86% among those with no surgery, and the incidence of chronic heart failure hospitalizations was 0.01% among people with prior bariatric surgery and 0.05% among those without prior surgery. Dr. Funes said. He noted that, during the period studied patients, with HFpEF were usually identified as having diastolic heart failure, an older name for the same disease.

In multivariate analyses that adjusted for age, sex, race, hypertension, diabetes, smoking, and coronary artery disease, people without prior bariatric surgery and with hypertension had a 2.8-fold increased rate of acute hospitalizations for HFpEF, while those without hypertension or prior bariatric surgery had a 5.2-fold increased rate. In addition, control patients, regardless of hypertension status, had a 2.9-fold increased rate of hospitalizations for chronic HFpEF events. All these differences were statistically significant.

Dr. Funes also reported results from additional analyses that focused on a roughly 68,000-patient subgroup of those included in the study who had a history of coronary artery disease, including about 62,000 with no prior bariatric surgery and nearly 6,000 people with prior bariatric surgery. In a multivariate analysis of this subgroup, people without prior bariatric surgery had a 2.65-fold increased rate of hospitalization for a HFpEF event (either acute or chronic), compared with those who had undergone bariatric surgery.

Dr. Funes and associates and Dr. Kindel had no relevant disclosures.

[email protected]

Imagine this scenario: You are seated at the dinner table with your family when your smartphone buzzes; you look over, and the push notification reads “new biopsy results!”

PxHere

There is a sudden spill of icy anxiety down your spine as you pick up your phone in your shaking hands. It’s 6 p.m.; your doctor’s office is closed. You open the message, and your worst fears are confirmed ... the cancer is back.

Or is it? You’re not sure. The biopsy sure sounds bad. But you’re an English teacher, not a doctor, and you spend the rest of the night Googling words like “tubulovillous” and “high-grade dysplasia.” You sit awake, terrified in front of the computer screen desperately trying to make sense of the possibly life-changing results. You wish you knew someone who could help you understand; you consider calling your doctor’s emergency line, or your cousin who is an ophthalmologist – anybody who can help you make sense of the results.

Or imagine another scenario: you’re a trans teen who has asked your doctor to refer to you by your preferred pronouns. You’re still presenting as your birth sex, in part because your family would disown you if they knew, and you’re not financially or emotionally ready for that step. You feel proud of yourself for advocating for your needs to your long-time physician, and excited about the resources they’ve included in your after visit summary and the referrals they’d made to gender-confirming specialists.

When you get home, you are confronted with a terrible reality that your doctor’s notes, orders, and recommendations are immediately viewable to anybody with your MyChart login – your parents knew the second your doctor signed the note. They received the notification, logged on as your guardians, and you have effectively been “outed” by the physician who took and oath to care for you and who you trusted implicitly.
 

How the Cures Act is affecting patients

While these examples may sound extreme, they are becoming more and more commonplace thanks to a recently enacted 21st Century Cures Act. The act was originally written to improve communication between physicians and patients. Part of the act stipulates that nearly all medical information – from notes to biopsies to lab results – must be available within 24 hours, published to a patient portal and a notification be sent to the patient by phone.

Oftentimes, this occurs before the ordering physician has even seen the results, much less interpreted them and made a plan for the patient. What happens now, not long after its enactment date, when it has become clear that the Cures Act is causing extreme harm to our patients?

Take, for example, the real example of a physician whose patient found out about her own intrauterine fetal demise by way of an EMR text message alert of “new imaging results!” sent directly to her phone. Or a physician colleague who witnessed firsthand the intrusive unhelpfulness of the Cures Act when she was informed via patient portal releasing her imaging information that she had a large, possibly malignant breast mass. “No phone call,” she said. “No human being for questions or comfort. Just a notification on my phone.”

The stories about the impact of the Cures Act across the medical community are an endless stream of anxiety, hurt, and broken trust. The relationship between a physician and a patient should be sacred, bolstered by communication and mutual respect.

In many ways, the new act feels like a third party to the patient-physician relationship – a digital imposter, oftentimes blurting out personal and life-altering medical information without any of the finesse, context, and perspective of an experienced physician.
 

Breaking ‘bad news’ to a patient

In training, some residents are taught how to “break bad news” to a patient. Some good practices for doing this are to have information available for the patient, provide emotional support, have a plan for their next steps already formulated, and call the appropriate specialist ahead of time if you can.

Above all, it’s most important to let the patient be the one to direct their own care. Give them time to ask questions and answer them honestly and clearly. Ask them how much they want to know and help them to understand the complex change in their usual state of health.

Now, unless physicians are keeping a very close eye on their inbox, results are slipping out to patients in a void. The bad news conversations aren’t happening at all, or if they are, they’re happening at 8 p.m. on a phone call after an exhausted physician ends their shift but has to slog through their results bin, calling all the patients who shouldn’t have to find out their results in solitude.

Reaching out to these patients immediately is an honorable, kind thing to, but for a physician, knowing they need to beat the patient to opening an email creates anxiety. Plus, making these calls at whatever hour the results are released to a patient is another burden added to doctors’ already-full plates.
 

Interpreting results

None of us want to harm our patients. All of us want to be there for them. But this act stands in the way of delivering quality, humanizing medical care.

It is true that patients have a right to access their own medical information. It is also true that waiting anxiously on results can cause undue harm to a patient. But the across-the-board, breakneck speed of information release mandated in this act causes irreparable harm not only to patients, but to the patient-physician relationship.

No patient should find out their cancer recurred while checking their emails at their desk. No patient should first learn of a life-altering diagnosis by way of scrolling through their smartphone in bed. The role of a physician is more than just a healer – we should also be educators, interpreters, partners and, first and foremost, advocates for our patients’ needs.

Our patients are depending on us to stand up and speak out about necessary changes to this act. Result releases should be delayed until they are viewed by a physician. Our patients deserve the dignity and opportunity of a conversation with their medical provider about their test results, and physicians deserve the chance to interpret results and frame the conversation in a way which is conducive to patient understanding and healing.

Dr. Persampiere is a first-year resident in the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Hospital–Jefferson Health. They have no conflicts related to the content of this piece. You can contact them at [email protected].

Imagine this scenario: You are seated at the dinner table with your family when your smartphone buzzes; you look over, and the push notification reads “new biopsy results!”

PxHere

There is a sudden spill of icy anxiety down your spine as you pick up your phone in your shaking hands. It’s 6 p.m.; your doctor’s office is closed. You open the message, and your worst fears are confirmed ... the cancer is back.

Or is it? You’re not sure. The biopsy sure sounds bad. But you’re an English teacher, not a doctor, and you spend the rest of the night Googling words like “tubulovillous” and “high-grade dysplasia.” You sit awake, terrified in front of the computer screen desperately trying to make sense of the possibly life-changing results. You wish you knew someone who could help you understand; you consider calling your doctor’s emergency line, or your cousin who is an ophthalmologist – anybody who can help you make sense of the results.

Or imagine another scenario: you’re a trans teen who has asked your doctor to refer to you by your preferred pronouns. You’re still presenting as your birth sex, in part because your family would disown you if they knew, and you’re not financially or emotionally ready for that step. You feel proud of yourself for advocating for your needs to your long-time physician, and excited about the resources they’ve included in your after visit summary and the referrals they’d made to gender-confirming specialists.

When you get home, you are confronted with a terrible reality that your doctor’s notes, orders, and recommendations are immediately viewable to anybody with your MyChart login – your parents knew the second your doctor signed the note. They received the notification, logged on as your guardians, and you have effectively been “outed” by the physician who took and oath to care for you and who you trusted implicitly.
 

How the Cures Act is affecting patients

While these examples may sound extreme, they are becoming more and more commonplace thanks to a recently enacted 21st Century Cures Act. The act was originally written to improve communication between physicians and patients. Part of the act stipulates that nearly all medical information – from notes to biopsies to lab results – must be available within 24 hours, published to a patient portal and a notification be sent to the patient by phone.

Oftentimes, this occurs before the ordering physician has even seen the results, much less interpreted them and made a plan for the patient. What happens now, not long after its enactment date, when it has become clear that the Cures Act is causing extreme harm to our patients?

Take, for example, the real example of a physician whose patient found out about her own intrauterine fetal demise by way of an EMR text message alert of “new imaging results!” sent directly to her phone. Or a physician colleague who witnessed firsthand the intrusive unhelpfulness of the Cures Act when she was informed via patient portal releasing her imaging information that she had a large, possibly malignant breast mass. “No phone call,” she said. “No human being for questions or comfort. Just a notification on my phone.”

The stories about the impact of the Cures Act across the medical community are an endless stream of anxiety, hurt, and broken trust. The relationship between a physician and a patient should be sacred, bolstered by communication and mutual respect.

In many ways, the new act feels like a third party to the patient-physician relationship – a digital imposter, oftentimes blurting out personal and life-altering medical information without any of the finesse, context, and perspective of an experienced physician.
 

Breaking ‘bad news’ to a patient

In training, some residents are taught how to “break bad news” to a patient. Some good practices for doing this are to have information available for the patient, provide emotional support, have a plan for their next steps already formulated, and call the appropriate specialist ahead of time if you can.

Above all, it’s most important to let the patient be the one to direct their own care. Give them time to ask questions and answer them honestly and clearly. Ask them how much they want to know and help them to understand the complex change in their usual state of health.

Now, unless physicians are keeping a very close eye on their inbox, results are slipping out to patients in a void. The bad news conversations aren’t happening at all, or if they are, they’re happening at 8 p.m. on a phone call after an exhausted physician ends their shift but has to slog through their results bin, calling all the patients who shouldn’t have to find out their results in solitude.

Reaching out to these patients immediately is an honorable, kind thing to, but for a physician, knowing they need to beat the patient to opening an email creates anxiety. Plus, making these calls at whatever hour the results are released to a patient is another burden added to doctors’ already-full plates.
 

Interpreting results

None of us want to harm our patients. All of us want to be there for them. But this act stands in the way of delivering quality, humanizing medical care.

It is true that patients have a right to access their own medical information. It is also true that waiting anxiously on results can cause undue harm to a patient. But the across-the-board, breakneck speed of information release mandated in this act causes irreparable harm not only to patients, but to the patient-physician relationship.

No patient should find out their cancer recurred while checking their emails at their desk. No patient should first learn of a life-altering diagnosis by way of scrolling through their smartphone in bed. The role of a physician is more than just a healer – we should also be educators, interpreters, partners and, first and foremost, advocates for our patients’ needs.

Our patients are depending on us to stand up and speak out about necessary changes to this act. Result releases should be delayed until they are viewed by a physician. Our patients deserve the dignity and opportunity of a conversation with their medical provider about their test results, and physicians deserve the chance to interpret results and frame the conversation in a way which is conducive to patient understanding and healing.

Dr. Persampiere is a first-year resident in the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Hospital–Jefferson Health. They have no conflicts related to the content of this piece. You can contact them at [email protected].

Imagine this scenario: You are seated at the dinner table with your family when your smartphone buzzes; you look over, and the push notification reads “new biopsy results!”

PxHere

There is a sudden spill of icy anxiety down your spine as you pick up your phone in your shaking hands. It’s 6 p.m.; your doctor’s office is closed. You open the message, and your worst fears are confirmed ... the cancer is back.

Or is it? You’re not sure. The biopsy sure sounds bad. But you’re an English teacher, not a doctor, and you spend the rest of the night Googling words like “tubulovillous” and “high-grade dysplasia.” You sit awake, terrified in front of the computer screen desperately trying to make sense of the possibly life-changing results. You wish you knew someone who could help you understand; you consider calling your doctor’s emergency line, or your cousin who is an ophthalmologist – anybody who can help you make sense of the results.

Or imagine another scenario: you’re a trans teen who has asked your doctor to refer to you by your preferred pronouns. You’re still presenting as your birth sex, in part because your family would disown you if they knew, and you’re not financially or emotionally ready for that step. You feel proud of yourself for advocating for your needs to your long-time physician, and excited about the resources they’ve included in your after visit summary and the referrals they’d made to gender-confirming specialists.

When you get home, you are confronted with a terrible reality that your doctor’s notes, orders, and recommendations are immediately viewable to anybody with your MyChart login – your parents knew the second your doctor signed the note. They received the notification, logged on as your guardians, and you have effectively been “outed” by the physician who took and oath to care for you and who you trusted implicitly.
 

How the Cures Act is affecting patients

While these examples may sound extreme, they are becoming more and more commonplace thanks to a recently enacted 21st Century Cures Act. The act was originally written to improve communication between physicians and patients. Part of the act stipulates that nearly all medical information – from notes to biopsies to lab results – must be available within 24 hours, published to a patient portal and a notification be sent to the patient by phone.

Oftentimes, this occurs before the ordering physician has even seen the results, much less interpreted them and made a plan for the patient. What happens now, not long after its enactment date, when it has become clear that the Cures Act is causing extreme harm to our patients?

Take, for example, the real example of a physician whose patient found out about her own intrauterine fetal demise by way of an EMR text message alert of “new imaging results!” sent directly to her phone. Or a physician colleague who witnessed firsthand the intrusive unhelpfulness of the Cures Act when she was informed via patient portal releasing her imaging information that she had a large, possibly malignant breast mass. “No phone call,” she said. “No human being for questions or comfort. Just a notification on my phone.”

The stories about the impact of the Cures Act across the medical community are an endless stream of anxiety, hurt, and broken trust. The relationship between a physician and a patient should be sacred, bolstered by communication and mutual respect.

In many ways, the new act feels like a third party to the patient-physician relationship – a digital imposter, oftentimes blurting out personal and life-altering medical information without any of the finesse, context, and perspective of an experienced physician.
 

Breaking ‘bad news’ to a patient

In training, some residents are taught how to “break bad news” to a patient. Some good practices for doing this are to have information available for the patient, provide emotional support, have a plan for their next steps already formulated, and call the appropriate specialist ahead of time if you can.

Above all, it’s most important to let the patient be the one to direct their own care. Give them time to ask questions and answer them honestly and clearly. Ask them how much they want to know and help them to understand the complex change in their usual state of health.

Now, unless physicians are keeping a very close eye on their inbox, results are slipping out to patients in a void. The bad news conversations aren’t happening at all, or if they are, they’re happening at 8 p.m. on a phone call after an exhausted physician ends their shift but has to slog through their results bin, calling all the patients who shouldn’t have to find out their results in solitude.

Reaching out to these patients immediately is an honorable, kind thing to, but for a physician, knowing they need to beat the patient to opening an email creates anxiety. Plus, making these calls at whatever hour the results are released to a patient is another burden added to doctors’ already-full plates.
 

Interpreting results

None of us want to harm our patients. All of us want to be there for them. But this act stands in the way of delivering quality, humanizing medical care.

It is true that patients have a right to access their own medical information. It is also true that waiting anxiously on results can cause undue harm to a patient. But the across-the-board, breakneck speed of information release mandated in this act causes irreparable harm not only to patients, but to the patient-physician relationship.

No patient should find out their cancer recurred while checking their emails at their desk. No patient should first learn of a life-altering diagnosis by way of scrolling through their smartphone in bed. The role of a physician is more than just a healer – we should also be educators, interpreters, partners and, first and foremost, advocates for our patients’ needs.

Our patients are depending on us to stand up and speak out about necessary changes to this act. Result releases should be delayed until they are viewed by a physician. Our patients deserve the dignity and opportunity of a conversation with their medical provider about their test results, and physicians deserve the chance to interpret results and frame the conversation in a way which is conducive to patient understanding and healing.

Dr. Persampiere is a first-year resident in the family medicine residency program at Abington (Pa.) Hospital–Jefferson Health. Dr. Skolnik is professor of family and community medicine at Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, and associate director of the family medicine residency program at Abington Hospital–Jefferson Health. They have no conflicts related to the content of this piece. You can contact them at [email protected].

Two lots of metformin HCl extended-release tablets have been recalled by Viona Pharmaceuticals because unacceptable levels of nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA), a likely carcinogen, were found in the 750-mg tablets.

According to a June 11 alert from the Food and Drug Administration, the affected lot numbers are M915601 and M915602.

This generic product was made by Cadila Healthcare, Ahmedabad, India, in November 2019 with an expiration date of October 2021, and distributed throughout the United States. The pill is white to off-white, capsule-shaped, uncoated tablets, debossed with “Z”, “C” on one side and “20” on the other side.

No adverse events related to the lots involved in the recall have been reported, the FDA said. It also recommends that clinicians continue to prescribe metformin when clinically appropriate.

In late 2019, the FDA announced it had become aware of NDMA in some metformin products in other countries. The agency immediately began testing to determine whether the metformin in the U.S. supply was at risk, as part of the ongoing investigation into nitrosamine impurities across medication types, which included recalls of hypertension and heartburn medications within the past 3 years.

In February 2020, the FDA reported that they hadn’t found NDMA levels that exceeded the acceptable daily intake. But starting in May 2020, voluntary recalls by, numerous manufacturers have been announced as levels of the compound exceeded that cutoff.

[email protected]

Two lots of metformin HCl extended-release tablets have been recalled by Viona Pharmaceuticals because unacceptable levels of nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA), a likely carcinogen, were found in the 750-mg tablets.

According to a June 11 alert from the Food and Drug Administration, the affected lot numbers are M915601 and M915602.

This generic product was made by Cadila Healthcare, Ahmedabad, India, in November 2019 with an expiration date of October 2021, and distributed throughout the United States. The pill is white to off-white, capsule-shaped, uncoated tablets, debossed with “Z”, “C” on one side and “20” on the other side.

No adverse events related to the lots involved in the recall have been reported, the FDA said. It also recommends that clinicians continue to prescribe metformin when clinically appropriate.

In late 2019, the FDA announced it had become aware of NDMA in some metformin products in other countries. The agency immediately began testing to determine whether the metformin in the U.S. supply was at risk, as part of the ongoing investigation into nitrosamine impurities across medication types, which included recalls of hypertension and heartburn medications within the past 3 years.

In February 2020, the FDA reported that they hadn’t found NDMA levels that exceeded the acceptable daily intake. But starting in May 2020, voluntary recalls by, numerous manufacturers have been announced as levels of the compound exceeded that cutoff.

[email protected]

Two lots of metformin HCl extended-release tablets have been recalled by Viona Pharmaceuticals because unacceptable levels of nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA), a likely carcinogen, were found in the 750-mg tablets.

According to a June 11 alert from the Food and Drug Administration, the affected lot numbers are M915601 and M915602.

This generic product was made by Cadila Healthcare, Ahmedabad, India, in November 2019 with an expiration date of October 2021, and distributed throughout the United States. The pill is white to off-white, capsule-shaped, uncoated tablets, debossed with “Z”, “C” on one side and “20” on the other side.

No adverse events related to the lots involved in the recall have been reported, the FDA said. It also recommends that clinicians continue to prescribe metformin when clinically appropriate.

In late 2019, the FDA announced it had become aware of NDMA in some metformin products in other countries. The agency immediately began testing to determine whether the metformin in the U.S. supply was at risk, as part of the ongoing investigation into nitrosamine impurities across medication types, which included recalls of hypertension and heartburn medications within the past 3 years.

In February 2020, the FDA reported that they hadn’t found NDMA levels that exceeded the acceptable daily intake. But starting in May 2020, voluntary recalls by, numerous manufacturers have been announced as levels of the compound exceeded that cutoff.

[email protected]

A new study supports the recommendation of eating two servings of fruit a day for health benefits – in this case a lower risk of diabetes.

Adults who ate two servings of fruit a day had 36% lower odds of developing diabetes within 5 years compared to those who ate less than a half serving of fruit a day, after adjusting for confounders, in a population-based Australian study.

The findings by Nicola P. Bondonno, PhD, and colleagues, based on data from the Australian Diabetes, Obesity, and Lifestyle Study (AusDiab), were published online June 2 in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

The study also showed that a higher fruit intake was associated with higher insulin sensitivity and lower pancreatic beta-cell function in a dose-response manner.

And a higher intake of apples – but not citrus fruit or bananas, the two other fruits studied – was associated with lower post-load serum insulin levels.

“This indicates that people who consumed more fruit [especially apples] had to produce less insulin to lower their blood glucose levels,” Dr. Bondonno, from the Institute for Nutrition Research, Edith Cowan University, Perth, Australia, explained in a statement from the Endocrine Society.

“This is important since high levels of circulating insulin (hyperinsulinemia) can damage blood vessels” and this is “related not only to diabetes, but also to high blood pressure, obesity, and heart disease,” she observed.
 

Fruit juice doesn’t have same effect

The study supports the recommendation of the Australian Dietary Guidelines – 2 servings of fruit a day, where one serving is 150 grams, which corresponds to a medium-sized apple, orange, or banana – Dr. Bondonno clarified in an email.

However, fruit juice was not associated with better glucose or insulin levels, or lower risk of diabetes, possibly because of its relatively high glycemic load and fewer beneficial fibers, the researchers speculate; added data suggest that even juice with added fiber does not trigger satiety.

The study findings “support encouragement of the consumption of whole fruits, but not fruit juice, to preserve insulin sensitivity and mitigate [type 2 diabetes] risk,” Dr. Bondonno and colleagues summarize.

“Promoting a healthy diet and lifestyle which includes the consumption of popular fruits such as apples, bananas, and oranges, with widespread geographical availability, may lower [type 2 diabetes] incidence,” they conclude.
 

Lower 5-year odds of diabetes

It is not clear how eating fruit may confer protection against developing diabetes, the researchers write.

They aimed to examine how consumption of total fruit, individual fruit, and fruit juice is related to glucose tolerance, insulin sensitivity, and incident diabetes at 5 years and 12 years in participants in the nationally representative AusDiab study.  

They identified 7,675 adults aged 25 and older without diabetes who had undergone blood tests and completed a food frequency questionnaire in 1999-2000.

Participants had indicated how often they ate 10 different types of fruit, any type of fruit juice, and other foods on a scale of 0 (never) to 10 (three or more times/day).

Researchers divided participants into quartiles based on their median fruit consumption: 62 (range 0-95) g/day, 122 (95-162) g/day, 230 (162-283) g/day, and 372 (283-961) g/day.

The most commonly consumed fruit was apples (23% of total fruit intake), followed by bananas (20%) and citrus fruit (18%). Other fruits each accounted for less than 8% of total fruit intake, so they were not studied separately.

Participants in each quartile had a similar mean age (54 years) and body mass index (27 kg/m²).

However, compared with participants in quartile 1 (low fruit intake), those in quartiles 3 and 4 (moderate and high fruit intakes, respectively) were more likely to be female, do at least 150 minutes of physical activity a week, and less likely to smoke. They also ate more vegetables and less red meat and processed meat, but they consumed more sugar.

Of 4,674 participants who had 5-year follow-up, 179 participants developed diabetes.

Compared to participants with a low fruit intake (quartile 1), those with a moderate fruit intake (quartile 3) had a 36% lower odds of developing diabetes within 5 years (odds ratio, 0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.44-0.92) after adjusting for age, sex, physical activity, education, socioeconomic status, income, body mass index, smoking, cardiovascular disease, parental history of diabetes, and consumption of alcohol, vegetables, red meat, processed meat, and calories.

Of the 3,518 participants with 12-year follow-up, 247 participants had diabetes, but there were no significant associations between fruit consumption and this longer-term risk of diabetes, possibly due to the small number of participants and events.

The study was supported by grants from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia and the National Heart Foundation of Australia. Dr. Bondonno has reported no relevant financial disclosures. Disclosures of the other authors are listed with the article.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A new study supports the recommendation of eating two servings of fruit a day for health benefits – in this case a lower risk of diabetes.

Adults who ate two servings of fruit a day had 36% lower odds of developing diabetes within 5 years compared to those who ate less than a half serving of fruit a day, after adjusting for confounders, in a population-based Australian study.

The findings by Nicola P. Bondonno, PhD, and colleagues, based on data from the Australian Diabetes, Obesity, and Lifestyle Study (AusDiab), were published online June 2 in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

The study also showed that a higher fruit intake was associated with higher insulin sensitivity and lower pancreatic beta-cell function in a dose-response manner.

And a higher intake of apples – but not citrus fruit or bananas, the two other fruits studied – was associated with lower post-load serum insulin levels.

“This indicates that people who consumed more fruit [especially apples] had to produce less insulin to lower their blood glucose levels,” Dr. Bondonno, from the Institute for Nutrition Research, Edith Cowan University, Perth, Australia, explained in a statement from the Endocrine Society.

“This is important since high levels of circulating insulin (hyperinsulinemia) can damage blood vessels” and this is “related not only to diabetes, but also to high blood pressure, obesity, and heart disease,” she observed.
 

Fruit juice doesn’t have same effect

The study supports the recommendation of the Australian Dietary Guidelines – 2 servings of fruit a day, where one serving is 150 grams, which corresponds to a medium-sized apple, orange, or banana – Dr. Bondonno clarified in an email.

However, fruit juice was not associated with better glucose or insulin levels, or lower risk of diabetes, possibly because of its relatively high glycemic load and fewer beneficial fibers, the researchers speculate; added data suggest that even juice with added fiber does not trigger satiety.

The study findings “support encouragement of the consumption of whole fruits, but not fruit juice, to preserve insulin sensitivity and mitigate [type 2 diabetes] risk,” Dr. Bondonno and colleagues summarize.

“Promoting a healthy diet and lifestyle which includes the consumption of popular fruits such as apples, bananas, and oranges, with widespread geographical availability, may lower [type 2 diabetes] incidence,” they conclude.
 

Lower 5-year odds of diabetes

It is not clear how eating fruit may confer protection against developing diabetes, the researchers write.

They aimed to examine how consumption of total fruit, individual fruit, and fruit juice is related to glucose tolerance, insulin sensitivity, and incident diabetes at 5 years and 12 years in participants in the nationally representative AusDiab study.  

They identified 7,675 adults aged 25 and older without diabetes who had undergone blood tests and completed a food frequency questionnaire in 1999-2000.

Participants had indicated how often they ate 10 different types of fruit, any type of fruit juice, and other foods on a scale of 0 (never) to 10 (three or more times/day).

Researchers divided participants into quartiles based on their median fruit consumption: 62 (range 0-95) g/day, 122 (95-162) g/day, 230 (162-283) g/day, and 372 (283-961) g/day.

The most commonly consumed fruit was apples (23% of total fruit intake), followed by bananas (20%) and citrus fruit (18%). Other fruits each accounted for less than 8% of total fruit intake, so they were not studied separately.

Participants in each quartile had a similar mean age (54 years) and body mass index (27 kg/m²).

However, compared with participants in quartile 1 (low fruit intake), those in quartiles 3 and 4 (moderate and high fruit intakes, respectively) were more likely to be female, do at least 150 minutes of physical activity a week, and less likely to smoke. They also ate more vegetables and less red meat and processed meat, but they consumed more sugar.

Of 4,674 participants who had 5-year follow-up, 179 participants developed diabetes.

Compared to participants with a low fruit intake (quartile 1), those with a moderate fruit intake (quartile 3) had a 36% lower odds of developing diabetes within 5 years (odds ratio, 0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.44-0.92) after adjusting for age, sex, physical activity, education, socioeconomic status, income, body mass index, smoking, cardiovascular disease, parental history of diabetes, and consumption of alcohol, vegetables, red meat, processed meat, and calories.

Of the 3,518 participants with 12-year follow-up, 247 participants had diabetes, but there were no significant associations between fruit consumption and this longer-term risk of diabetes, possibly due to the small number of participants and events.

The study was supported by grants from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia and the National Heart Foundation of Australia. Dr. Bondonno has reported no relevant financial disclosures. Disclosures of the other authors are listed with the article.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A new study supports the recommendation of eating two servings of fruit a day for health benefits – in this case a lower risk of diabetes.

Adults who ate two servings of fruit a day had 36% lower odds of developing diabetes within 5 years compared to those who ate less than a half serving of fruit a day, after adjusting for confounders, in a population-based Australian study.

The findings by Nicola P. Bondonno, PhD, and colleagues, based on data from the Australian Diabetes, Obesity, and Lifestyle Study (AusDiab), were published online June 2 in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism.

The study also showed that a higher fruit intake was associated with higher insulin sensitivity and lower pancreatic beta-cell function in a dose-response manner.

And a higher intake of apples – but not citrus fruit or bananas, the two other fruits studied – was associated with lower post-load serum insulin levels.

“This indicates that people who consumed more fruit [especially apples] had to produce less insulin to lower their blood glucose levels,” Dr. Bondonno, from the Institute for Nutrition Research, Edith Cowan University, Perth, Australia, explained in a statement from the Endocrine Society.

“This is important since high levels of circulating insulin (hyperinsulinemia) can damage blood vessels” and this is “related not only to diabetes, but also to high blood pressure, obesity, and heart disease,” she observed.
 

Fruit juice doesn’t have same effect

The study supports the recommendation of the Australian Dietary Guidelines – 2 servings of fruit a day, where one serving is 150 grams, which corresponds to a medium-sized apple, orange, or banana – Dr. Bondonno clarified in an email.

However, fruit juice was not associated with better glucose or insulin levels, or lower risk of diabetes, possibly because of its relatively high glycemic load and fewer beneficial fibers, the researchers speculate; added data suggest that even juice with added fiber does not trigger satiety.

The study findings “support encouragement of the consumption of whole fruits, but not fruit juice, to preserve insulin sensitivity and mitigate [type 2 diabetes] risk,” Dr. Bondonno and colleagues summarize.

“Promoting a healthy diet and lifestyle which includes the consumption of popular fruits such as apples, bananas, and oranges, with widespread geographical availability, may lower [type 2 diabetes] incidence,” they conclude.
 

Lower 5-year odds of diabetes

It is not clear how eating fruit may confer protection against developing diabetes, the researchers write.

They aimed to examine how consumption of total fruit, individual fruit, and fruit juice is related to glucose tolerance, insulin sensitivity, and incident diabetes at 5 years and 12 years in participants in the nationally representative AusDiab study.  

They identified 7,675 adults aged 25 and older without diabetes who had undergone blood tests and completed a food frequency questionnaire in 1999-2000.

Participants had indicated how often they ate 10 different types of fruit, any type of fruit juice, and other foods on a scale of 0 (never) to 10 (three or more times/day).

Researchers divided participants into quartiles based on their median fruit consumption: 62 (range 0-95) g/day, 122 (95-162) g/day, 230 (162-283) g/day, and 372 (283-961) g/day.

The most commonly consumed fruit was apples (23% of total fruit intake), followed by bananas (20%) and citrus fruit (18%). Other fruits each accounted for less than 8% of total fruit intake, so they were not studied separately.

Participants in each quartile had a similar mean age (54 years) and body mass index (27 kg/m²).

However, compared with participants in quartile 1 (low fruit intake), those in quartiles 3 and 4 (moderate and high fruit intakes, respectively) were more likely to be female, do at least 150 minutes of physical activity a week, and less likely to smoke. They also ate more vegetables and less red meat and processed meat, but they consumed more sugar.

Of 4,674 participants who had 5-year follow-up, 179 participants developed diabetes.

Compared to participants with a low fruit intake (quartile 1), those with a moderate fruit intake (quartile 3) had a 36% lower odds of developing diabetes within 5 years (odds ratio, 0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.44-0.92) after adjusting for age, sex, physical activity, education, socioeconomic status, income, body mass index, smoking, cardiovascular disease, parental history of diabetes, and consumption of alcohol, vegetables, red meat, processed meat, and calories.

Of the 3,518 participants with 12-year follow-up, 247 participants had diabetes, but there were no significant associations between fruit consumption and this longer-term risk of diabetes, possibly due to the small number of participants and events.

The study was supported by grants from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia and the National Heart Foundation of Australia. Dr. Bondonno has reported no relevant financial disclosures. Disclosures of the other authors are listed with the article.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A federal judge in Texas has dismissed a lawsuit from 117 Houston Methodist Hospital workers who refused to get a COVID-19 vaccine and said it was illegal to require them to do so.

In the ruling issued June 12, U.S. District Judge Lynn Hughes upheld the hospital’s policy and said the vaccination requirement didn’t break any federal laws.

“This is not coercion,” Judge Hughes wrote in the ruling.

“Methodist is trying to do their business of saving lives without giving them the COVID-19 virus,” he wrote. “It is a choice made to keep staff, patients, and their families safer.”

In April, the Houston Methodist Hospital system announced a policy that required employees to be vaccinated by June 7 or request an exemption. After the deadline, 178 of 26,000 employees refused to get inoculated and were placed on suspension without pay. The employees said the vaccine was unsafe and “experimental.” In his ruling, Judge Hughes said their claim was false and irrelevant.

“Texas law only protects employees from being terminated for refusing to commit an act carrying criminal penalties to the worker,” he wrote. “Receiving a COVID-19 vaccination is not an illegal act, and it carries no criminal penalties.”

He denounced the “press-release style of the complaint” and the comparison of the hospital’s vaccine policy to forced experimentation by the Nazis against Jewish people during the Holocaust.

“Equating the injection requirement to medical experimentation in concentration camps is reprehensible,” he wrote. “Nazi doctors conducted medical experiments on victims that caused pain, mutilation, permanent disability, and in many cases, death.”

Judge Hughes also said that employees can “freely choose” to accept or refuse a COVID-19 vaccine. If they refuse, they “simply need to work somewhere else,” he wrote.

“If a worker refuses an assignment, changed office, earlier start time, or other directive, he may be properly fired,” Judge Hughes said. “Every employment includes limits on the worker’s behavior in exchange for his remuneration. This is all part of the bargain.”

The ruling could set a precedent for similar COVID-19 vaccine lawsuits across the country, NPR reported. Houston Methodist was one of the first hospitals to require staff to be vaccinated. After the ruling on June 12, the hospital system wrote in a statement that it was “pleased and reassured” that Judge Hughes dismissed a “frivolous lawsuit.”

The hospital system will begin to terminate the 178 employees who were suspended if they don’t get a vaccine by June 21.

Jennifer Bridges, a nurse who has led the campaign against the vaccine policy, said she and the other plaintiffs will appeal the decision, according to KHOU.

“We’re OK with this decision. We are appealing. This will be taken all the way to the Supreme Court,” she told the news station. “This is far from over. This is literally only the beginning.”

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

A federal judge in Texas has dismissed a lawsuit from 117 Houston Methodist Hospital workers who refused to get a COVID-19 vaccine and said it was illegal to require them to do so.

In the ruling issued June 12, U.S. District Judge Lynn Hughes upheld the hospital’s policy and said the vaccination requirement didn’t break any federal laws.

“This is not coercion,” Judge Hughes wrote in the ruling.

“Methodist is trying to do their business of saving lives without giving them the COVID-19 virus,” he wrote. “It is a choice made to keep staff, patients, and their families safer.”

In April, the Houston Methodist Hospital system announced a policy that required employees to be vaccinated by June 7 or request an exemption. After the deadline, 178 of 26,000 employees refused to get inoculated and were placed on suspension without pay. The employees said the vaccine was unsafe and “experimental.” In his ruling, Judge Hughes said their claim was false and irrelevant.

“Texas law only protects employees from being terminated for refusing to commit an act carrying criminal penalties to the worker,” he wrote. “Receiving a COVID-19 vaccination is not an illegal act, and it carries no criminal penalties.”

He denounced the “press-release style of the complaint” and the comparison of the hospital’s vaccine policy to forced experimentation by the Nazis against Jewish people during the Holocaust.

“Equating the injection requirement to medical experimentation in concentration camps is reprehensible,” he wrote. “Nazi doctors conducted medical experiments on victims that caused pain, mutilation, permanent disability, and in many cases, death.”

Judge Hughes also said that employees can “freely choose” to accept or refuse a COVID-19 vaccine. If they refuse, they “simply need to work somewhere else,” he wrote.

“If a worker refuses an assignment, changed office, earlier start time, or other directive, he may be properly fired,” Judge Hughes said. “Every employment includes limits on the worker’s behavior in exchange for his remuneration. This is all part of the bargain.”

The ruling could set a precedent for similar COVID-19 vaccine lawsuits across the country, NPR reported. Houston Methodist was one of the first hospitals to require staff to be vaccinated. After the ruling on June 12, the hospital system wrote in a statement that it was “pleased and reassured” that Judge Hughes dismissed a “frivolous lawsuit.”

The hospital system will begin to terminate the 178 employees who were suspended if they don’t get a vaccine by June 21.

Jennifer Bridges, a nurse who has led the campaign against the vaccine policy, said she and the other plaintiffs will appeal the decision, according to KHOU.

“We’re OK with this decision. We are appealing. This will be taken all the way to the Supreme Court,” she told the news station. “This is far from over. This is literally only the beginning.”

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

A federal judge in Texas has dismissed a lawsuit from 117 Houston Methodist Hospital workers who refused to get a COVID-19 vaccine and said it was illegal to require them to do so.

In the ruling issued June 12, U.S. District Judge Lynn Hughes upheld the hospital’s policy and said the vaccination requirement didn’t break any federal laws.

“This is not coercion,” Judge Hughes wrote in the ruling.

“Methodist is trying to do their business of saving lives without giving them the COVID-19 virus,” he wrote. “It is a choice made to keep staff, patients, and their families safer.”

In April, the Houston Methodist Hospital system announced a policy that required employees to be vaccinated by June 7 or request an exemption. After the deadline, 178 of 26,000 employees refused to get inoculated and were placed on suspension without pay. The employees said the vaccine was unsafe and “experimental.” In his ruling, Judge Hughes said their claim was false and irrelevant.

“Texas law only protects employees from being terminated for refusing to commit an act carrying criminal penalties to the worker,” he wrote. “Receiving a COVID-19 vaccination is not an illegal act, and it carries no criminal penalties.”

He denounced the “press-release style of the complaint” and the comparison of the hospital’s vaccine policy to forced experimentation by the Nazis against Jewish people during the Holocaust.

“Equating the injection requirement to medical experimentation in concentration camps is reprehensible,” he wrote. “Nazi doctors conducted medical experiments on victims that caused pain, mutilation, permanent disability, and in many cases, death.”

Judge Hughes also said that employees can “freely choose” to accept or refuse a COVID-19 vaccine. If they refuse, they “simply need to work somewhere else,” he wrote.

“If a worker refuses an assignment, changed office, earlier start time, or other directive, he may be properly fired,” Judge Hughes said. “Every employment includes limits on the worker’s behavior in exchange for his remuneration. This is all part of the bargain.”

The ruling could set a precedent for similar COVID-19 vaccine lawsuits across the country, NPR reported. Houston Methodist was one of the first hospitals to require staff to be vaccinated. After the ruling on June 12, the hospital system wrote in a statement that it was “pleased and reassured” that Judge Hughes dismissed a “frivolous lawsuit.”

The hospital system will begin to terminate the 178 employees who were suspended if they don’t get a vaccine by June 21.

Jennifer Bridges, a nurse who has led the campaign against the vaccine policy, said she and the other plaintiffs will appeal the decision, according to KHOU.

“We’re OK with this decision. We are appealing. This will be taken all the way to the Supreme Court,” she told the news station. “This is far from over. This is literally only the beginning.”

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration issued its long-awaited Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) for COVID-19 June 10, surprising many by including only health care workers in the new emergency workplace safety rules.

“The ETS is an overdue step toward protecting health care workers, especially those working in long-term care facilities and home health care who are at greatly increased risk of infection,” said George Washington University, Washington, professor and former Obama administration Assistant Secretary of Labor David Michaels, PhD, MPH. “OSHA’s failure to issue a COVID-specific standard in other high-risk industries, like meat and poultry processing, corrections, homeless shelters, and retail establishments is disappointing. If exposure is not controlled in these workplaces, they will continue to be important drivers of infections.”

With the new regulations in place, about 10.3 million health care workers at hospitals, nursing homes, and assisted living facilities, as well as emergency responders and home health care workers, should be guaranteed protection standards that replace former guidance.

The new protections include supplying personal protective equipment and ensuring proper usage (for example, mandatory seal checks on respirators); screening everyone who enters the facility for COVID-19; ensuring proper ventilation; and establishing physical distancing requirements (6 feet) for unvaccinated workers. It also requires employers to give workers time off for vaccination. An antiretaliation clause could shield workers who complain about unsafe conditions.

“The science tells us that health care workers, particularly those who come into regular contact with the virus, are most at risk at this point in the pandemic,” Labor Secretary Marty Walsh said on a press call. “So following an extensive review of the science and data, OSHA determined that a health care–specific safety requirement will make the biggest impact.”

But questions remain, said James Brudney, JD, a professor at Fordham Law School in New York and former chief counsel of the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Labor. The standard doesn’t amplify or address existing rules regarding a right to refuse unsafe work, for example, so employees may still feel they are risking their jobs to complain, despite the antiretaliation clause.

And although vaccinated employees don’t have to adhere to the same distancing and masking standards in many instances, the standard doesn’t spell out how employers should determine their workers’ vaccination status – instead leaving that determination to employers through their own policies and procedures. (California’s state OSHA office rules specify the mechanism for documentation of vaccination.)

The Trump administration did not issue an ETS, saying OSHA’s general duty clause sufficed. President Joe Biden took the opposite approach, calling for an investigation into an ETS on his first day in office. But the process took months longer than promised.

“I know it’s been a long time coming,” Mr. Walsh acknowledged. “Our health care workers from the very beginning have been put at risk.

While health care unions had asked for mandated safety standards sooner, National Nurses United, the country’s largest labor union for registered nurses, still welcomed the rules.

“An ETS is a major step toward requiring accountability for hospitals who consistently put their budget goals and profits over our health and safety,” Zenei Triunfo-Cortez, RN, one of NNU’s three presidents, said in a statement June 9 anticipating the publication of the rules.

The rules do not apply to retail pharmacies, ambulatory care settings that screen nonemployees for COVID-19, or certain other settings in which all employees are vaccinated and people with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 cannot enter.

The agency said it will work with states that have already issued local regulations, including two states that issued temporary standards of their own, Virginia and California.

Employers will have 2 weeks to comply with most of the regulations after they’re published in the Federal Register. The standards will expire in 6 months but could then become permanent, as Virginia’s did in January.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration issued its long-awaited Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) for COVID-19 June 10, surprising many by including only health care workers in the new emergency workplace safety rules.

“The ETS is an overdue step toward protecting health care workers, especially those working in long-term care facilities and home health care who are at greatly increased risk of infection,” said George Washington University, Washington, professor and former Obama administration Assistant Secretary of Labor David Michaels, PhD, MPH. “OSHA’s failure to issue a COVID-specific standard in other high-risk industries, like meat and poultry processing, corrections, homeless shelters, and retail establishments is disappointing. If exposure is not controlled in these workplaces, they will continue to be important drivers of infections.”

With the new regulations in place, about 10.3 million health care workers at hospitals, nursing homes, and assisted living facilities, as well as emergency responders and home health care workers, should be guaranteed protection standards that replace former guidance.

The new protections include supplying personal protective equipment and ensuring proper usage (for example, mandatory seal checks on respirators); screening everyone who enters the facility for COVID-19; ensuring proper ventilation; and establishing physical distancing requirements (6 feet) for unvaccinated workers. It also requires employers to give workers time off for vaccination. An antiretaliation clause could shield workers who complain about unsafe conditions.

“The science tells us that health care workers, particularly those who come into regular contact with the virus, are most at risk at this point in the pandemic,” Labor Secretary Marty Walsh said on a press call. “So following an extensive review of the science and data, OSHA determined that a health care–specific safety requirement will make the biggest impact.”

But questions remain, said James Brudney, JD, a professor at Fordham Law School in New York and former chief counsel of the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Labor. The standard doesn’t amplify or address existing rules regarding a right to refuse unsafe work, for example, so employees may still feel they are risking their jobs to complain, despite the antiretaliation clause.

And although vaccinated employees don’t have to adhere to the same distancing and masking standards in many instances, the standard doesn’t spell out how employers should determine their workers’ vaccination status – instead leaving that determination to employers through their own policies and procedures. (California’s state OSHA office rules specify the mechanism for documentation of vaccination.)

The Trump administration did not issue an ETS, saying OSHA’s general duty clause sufficed. President Joe Biden took the opposite approach, calling for an investigation into an ETS on his first day in office. But the process took months longer than promised.

“I know it’s been a long time coming,” Mr. Walsh acknowledged. “Our health care workers from the very beginning have been put at risk.

While health care unions had asked for mandated safety standards sooner, National Nurses United, the country’s largest labor union for registered nurses, still welcomed the rules.

“An ETS is a major step toward requiring accountability for hospitals who consistently put their budget goals and profits over our health and safety,” Zenei Triunfo-Cortez, RN, one of NNU’s three presidents, said in a statement June 9 anticipating the publication of the rules.

The rules do not apply to retail pharmacies, ambulatory care settings that screen nonemployees for COVID-19, or certain other settings in which all employees are vaccinated and people with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 cannot enter.

The agency said it will work with states that have already issued local regulations, including two states that issued temporary standards of their own, Virginia and California.

Employers will have 2 weeks to comply with most of the regulations after they’re published in the Federal Register. The standards will expire in 6 months but could then become permanent, as Virginia’s did in January.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration issued its long-awaited Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) for COVID-19 June 10, surprising many by including only health care workers in the new emergency workplace safety rules.

“The ETS is an overdue step toward protecting health care workers, especially those working in long-term care facilities and home health care who are at greatly increased risk of infection,” said George Washington University, Washington, professor and former Obama administration Assistant Secretary of Labor David Michaels, PhD, MPH. “OSHA’s failure to issue a COVID-specific standard in other high-risk industries, like meat and poultry processing, corrections, homeless shelters, and retail establishments is disappointing. If exposure is not controlled in these workplaces, they will continue to be important drivers of infections.”

With the new regulations in place, about 10.3 million health care workers at hospitals, nursing homes, and assisted living facilities, as well as emergency responders and home health care workers, should be guaranteed protection standards that replace former guidance.

The new protections include supplying personal protective equipment and ensuring proper usage (for example, mandatory seal checks on respirators); screening everyone who enters the facility for COVID-19; ensuring proper ventilation; and establishing physical distancing requirements (6 feet) for unvaccinated workers. It also requires employers to give workers time off for vaccination. An antiretaliation clause could shield workers who complain about unsafe conditions.

“The science tells us that health care workers, particularly those who come into regular contact with the virus, are most at risk at this point in the pandemic,” Labor Secretary Marty Walsh said on a press call. “So following an extensive review of the science and data, OSHA determined that a health care–specific safety requirement will make the biggest impact.”

But questions remain, said James Brudney, JD, a professor at Fordham Law School in New York and former chief counsel of the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Labor. The standard doesn’t amplify or address existing rules regarding a right to refuse unsafe work, for example, so employees may still feel they are risking their jobs to complain, despite the antiretaliation clause.

And although vaccinated employees don’t have to adhere to the same distancing and masking standards in many instances, the standard doesn’t spell out how employers should determine their workers’ vaccination status – instead leaving that determination to employers through their own policies and procedures. (California’s state OSHA office rules specify the mechanism for documentation of vaccination.)

The Trump administration did not issue an ETS, saying OSHA’s general duty clause sufficed. President Joe Biden took the opposite approach, calling for an investigation into an ETS on his first day in office. But the process took months longer than promised.

“I know it’s been a long time coming,” Mr. Walsh acknowledged. “Our health care workers from the very beginning have been put at risk.

While health care unions had asked for mandated safety standards sooner, National Nurses United, the country’s largest labor union for registered nurses, still welcomed the rules.

“An ETS is a major step toward requiring accountability for hospitals who consistently put their budget goals and profits over our health and safety,” Zenei Triunfo-Cortez, RN, one of NNU’s three presidents, said in a statement June 9 anticipating the publication of the rules.

The rules do not apply to retail pharmacies, ambulatory care settings that screen nonemployees for COVID-19, or certain other settings in which all employees are vaccinated and people with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 cannot enter.

The agency said it will work with states that have already issued local regulations, including two states that issued temporary standards of their own, Virginia and California.

Employers will have 2 weeks to comply with most of the regulations after they’re published in the Federal Register. The standards will expire in 6 months but could then become permanent, as Virginia’s did in January.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.